I love when brutal dictators get to use chemical weapons.

[jessie04]

Why should we care. So some untold number of people we don't know gets slaughtered.....spare me the details.

Hey, the US once used chemical weapons, so its great to see open season on using chemical weapons. And to think, some dems want to lob a few patriots missiles to take a stand against them and maybe save thousands of lives. How silly.

The future of chemical weapons looks so promising..... in countries that I'm sure we can trust.

Syria
China
North Korea
Iran
Rowanda
Yemen

It looks like a growth industry.( We can all invest in those chemical weapons companies....buy low,sell high.)
And the "body-bag" and "Haz-mat" suit industry will also skyrocket with all those FOAMING AT THE MOUTH victims convulsing as they die from SARIN and that real fun chemical weapon, VX !! (Nothing is more fun than VX)

I'm just so thankful Progressivism has become Pacifism and we don't have to worry ourselves about thousands of innocent people having their neurological system becoming a quivering bunch of dead cells.

( pfffft.....I remember that terrible time when Democrats like Roosevelt stood up to dictators like Hitler when he was slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people. Lord, that was a terrible time. We had no moral right to stop the third Reich.)

And you can damn be sure , when the next country takes it to the next level, THE EVER POPULAR BIOLOGIC WEAPONS, we wont stop that either because its none of our damn business. (Actually Biological weapons are a real piece of work because unlike chem, biologics just keep going and going)

And Global Thermo-nuclear weapons are the ultimate.... and I mean ULTIMATE.

Assad and hopefully others dictators will get some nukes from Iran or NK , then watch (excuse the expression) sparks fly. Too bad for the lucky thousands who only have to die rather than develop thyroid and blood cancers and wither away like dead plant. Too bad they didn't move before it went off. Tough luck for innocent people.

Yes, its none of our damn business.








I think that was sarcasm.

[Link Speed]

1. And I love depleted uranium

Deformed infants give me the vapors.

[bobduca]

56. ^^ this ^^

this.

So many with a blind spot for American war crimes and atrocities.

The downside to nationalism.

[Niceguy1]

62. for many any act if war is a crime

Whether it actually is or not.

[quinnox]

2. Meh, your argument about President Roosevelt crumbles at first glance as most who know history

know Roosevelt did not join the war until we were directly attacked at Pearl Harbor. So Hitler was killing thousands and yet the USA sat on its hands until we were directly attacked, forcing us into the war.

[dflprincess]

39. And, on December 8, 1941 FDR asked for a declaration of war against only Japan.

He did not go back for the declaration of war against Germany until after Germany declared war on the U.S. (I think on December 11, maybe the 12th).

[anneboleyn]

40. Exactly. The argument about why the US entered WWII is just wrong

[Glassunion]

3. Your right.

Because happiness is a warm gun.

[MNBrewer]

4. Chemical weapons also lack the panache that double-tap drone strikes have

KaBOOM, KaBOOM!

[PoliticAverse]

5. Excellent parody of a right-ringer during the Bush administration. n/t

[Scootaloo]

6. You had no problem with hundreds of Egyptians getting butchered, Jessie

In fact you defended the Sisi junta's actions on that one, justifying it with burned churches. And now the Rebels of Syria are demanding the exile of Christians to Lebanon and the outright butchery of the Alawites (and presumably other Shia) and they're who you're backing here.

I remain amazed at your ability to favor whatever option offers the most corpses.

And despite its problems in the early 90's, Rwanda (there's no O) is not a dictatorship, nor a particularly awful place. For that matter, Yemen would probably not be so bad-off, if it weren't currently ground zero for an unspoken US war. It'd be dirt poor, which is a problem, but it's amazing what a mouthful of khat can do to improve your mood when you're broke.

[jessie04]

9. Egypt is a lose-lose-lose situation.

but I would say the same thing if any sides was using chemical weapons.

[Scootaloo]

26. And what makes chemical weapons the special line?

I'm not arguing that they're not awful, or that they should be acceptable methods, or any grotesque shit like that, mind you. I'm happy with their being banned and hugely stigmatized. It's just that all this sudden outrage seems completely arbitrary when set against the backdrop of the war itself. A hundred thousand dead in Syria, with the conflict spilling over into Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq, over a million refugees filling up Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan, two years of war and oh, suddenly we're so righteous? Suddenly we're so concerned?

Better late than never, perhaps, but if we were going to drop our shorts and jump in no matter what (as seems to be the case) then the bloviating about chemical weapons is just embarrassing and probably harmful, because yes, the Syrians we "help" will be wondering why the fuck we suddenly care... and they're not likely to come to flattering conclusions.

Speaking of those Syrians, how, exactly, is joining this six-asshole melee going to help them? Consider our options.

- A literal "shot across the bow" as described by the president. Congratulations, we wasted a 1.4 million-dollar weapon to blow up a parking lot, in the military equivalent of yelling at clouds. That'll show 'em!

- "Precision strikes" against Assad's military capabilities. Okay, at least this one makes some sense. But wait. if he's the one who used chemical weapons, and we reduce his ability to use conventional weapons, and make his fight against the insurgency more difficult... So you see where this is going?

- Okay, what say we strike at those chemical weapons sites we think we know about? Well, again not an awful idea, with one hitch - these weapons are no doubt stored in facilities that are understood to be potential missile targets, and have defenses in accordance. So while we might blow up or damage these places, we're certainly not going to cripple their ability to be used - and we'll have blown the doors off the hinges for any asshole who wants a new sarin shell for his hellcannon.

- How about a constant rain of missiles against Assad's military? That is, outright war (as opposed to just the previous acts of war)? well, first off, raining missiles has a tendency to kill people nearby, and since the fighting is in populated areas rather than the big open steppe in the middle of the country, we're likely to be raining fire and metal down on the heads of tens of thousands of people. Somehow retaliating against killing several hundred, by raining death on several thousand, doesn't strike me as a terribly moral move.

- Of course, Assad's not going to just lay back and take it from us. Very likely, the other factions besides the FSA aren't, either. And remember, the US isn't the only targets they have. A prolonged attack - which will be necessary to accomplish anything other than wasting US hardware - will inflame the conflict. In additions to the Syrians we kill with our strikes, the factions in Syria will "Step up their game." More people will die beyond Syria's borders.

- And say we knock over Assad. Now what? The FSA doesn't have the strength or support to take control, and frankly I doubt they'd be any better than the Baath. Do we crown one of the Islamist factions? If I recall, you have a rather genocidal mindset when it comes to people of Islamist political leanings (you know, the whole "supporting Egyt's liquidation of them" thing?) so I can;t imagine you'll be happy about that. Do we just call dropping Assad our "mission accomplished" and go back to letting the remaining factions hack at each other - now bolstered by the remains of the Syrian armed forces? I don't think that's going to save many lives, either.

You want to talk about a lose-lose situation? Well, there it is. You want a working option?

The insurgency has to end. It's the absolutely only way for Syria to ever see peace. We can't just "jump in" with that shit going on, every option we face will just make things worse. How to end it is far beyond my ken, sadly, and every idea that I have seems to be on the very edge of reality. I'm left with the impression that if we were going to get involved, the time to do it was two years ago, before the war splintered, and before Assad began regaining ground. It's too late to do anything constructive now, except for continued attempts to forge diplomacy.

[anneboleyn]

41. Great post Scootaloo. Excellent summation of the huge clusterfuck situation

This whole situation would be a huge mess.

[Amonester]

52. What about Israel? nt

[Scootaloo]

54. Dunno, what's the question?

[Amonester]

55. I am just wondering at what point they would become active

in all that mess. Hope not, though.

[Scootaloo]

58. Depends on what you mean by "active"

Israel's filed missiles into Syria, fire has been traded between the IDF and rebel fighters in southwestern Syria, and I've read that there are Israeli patrols that go as far as ten miles past the armistice line with Syria, so Israel is already involved...

But if you mean actually trying to get involved more deeply than that? Not unless some Syrian faction or other drags Israel into it with a big attack or two. Syria's not a fight that Israel wants. In fact I rather imagine it would respond to even major attacks simply with a few more missile strikes, so it can "hit back" but without committing fully to combat operations - particularly if it comes from one of the rebel factions. I could be wrong, but frankly I'd rather not find out either way.

[Amonester]

60. Me neither.

Too many violent 'machos' over there, and on all sides.

[Dragonfli]

69. Thank you, that is one of the best posts I have read on this subject all week. /nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. who is "backing" them?

no one has suggested that...have they...you are just extrapolating. Not buying the hyperbole

[RC]

53. It would not surprise me one bit that WE are.

Gotta keep those profits comin' in. We are mostly, kinda out of Iraq. Afghanistan is proving to be a dud, after all these years.
Syria is on the list after all...

[NightWatcher]

7. I love when people try to pull us into a war that's none of our business

Iraq was so much fun, I cant wait to do it again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Is this the same as a Red Alert or just another bogeymans-gonna-getchya OP?

[NuclearDem]

10. WWII had absolutely jackshit to do with the holocaust

If the plight of German Jews was such a concern for the Allies, they wouldn't have turned away boatloads of refugees coming to their shores.

The US entered WWII because Japan attacked. The US fought Hitler because he attacked our allies in Europe. Most Americans had no idea about the holocaust until the camps were liberated.

And while we're on the topic of lack of understanding, no one is in favor of anyone using chemical weapons. To suggest people are opposed to intervention in Syria because they're just fine with CWs being used is complete horseshit. The Syrian civil war has turned into a massive proxy war between the Arab states and Iran, and us jumping into the fray is only going to exacerbate tensions in the region and cause Syria to devolve into a chaotic power vacuum even quicker, and given how we wouldn't be able to even secure the sarin reserves without boots on the ground, Assad or the rebels would be fully capable of still using them.

So, please, get off the moralistic high horse and try to at least understand that this isn't a black and white issue, and people oppose intervention because they understand that.

[jessie04]

16. Thank you.

nt

[SomethingFishy]

19. Man I have seen takedowns before...

But I don't think I have ever seen an OP thank the person for it...

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. but then you leave out the point that the reason Japan attacked...was to get the U.S.involved.

[truebluegreen]

35. Sorry, but that is not true.

Japan attacked to destroy our war capabilities in the Pacific before we got involved. They didn't want us in it, they wanted us on the sideline.

By happenstance, they did not succeed. And as General Yamamoto noted at the time, they awakened a sleeping giant. It was a massive strategic failure.

[bunnies]

29. Fuckin A.

[WCGreen]

36. Amen....

I was just going to point that out.

I wanted to add that the US had virtually no real military presence aross the world like we do now. And the world was not connected like it is now.

[sarisataka]

38. Actually we fought Germany...

because Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on us. Before that it was far from a sure thing to get a declaration of war through Congress. FDR wanted to get into the European war, seeing Hitler as the greater threat, but US attention was focused on Japan.

[Cerridwen]

11. Why should we care?

Because I'm a pacifist and will not raise a hand in violence even to protect another.

Because I am anti-war and anything that has the faintest whiff of war is wrong, wrong, wrong, dammit no matter how many must die so I don't have to approve of or condone war.

Because I say let's bomb the fuck out of them and let God sort it out; He's such an awesome God.

Because my government has lied to me over and over and I couldn't tell the difference and so now I know that everything they say is a lie.

Because they are over there and I am over here and they are not quite human to me so who gives a shit.

Because this is nothing more than a philosophical debate I have from the safety of my home from an objective place and I don't have to deal with those messy emotional things when I can glomb onto REASON (see God references above).

Because I live in a country in which the horrors of war haven't been seen here since some little island was brutalized and even then it was "over there" not, ya know, main street. War is good...over there.

Because I can see the outcome of war but I am incapable of seeing the subtleties that lead to war.

[jessie04]

20. And I thought I was being sarcastic.

nt

[Cerridwen]

23. I've been here 10 years-ish. I've adapted.

I came here to learn and to share knowledge.

I learned that rhetorical tools and games(wo)man ship are valued more.

I still try to stick with facts rather than spin and reliable sources rather than those that confirm my bias. I appear to be in the minority. When I bother to come here, I use that tool that works in that situation.

I still hold on to my values and principles regardless of what I type or read here.

I still know bullshit when I see it. I'm not referring to your OP. A general observation of what "it's just business nothing personal (LLC)" (or principled) has wrought.

[steve2470]

12. I'm glad your kids and grandkids will be fighting and dying in Syria

Right ?


Oh......never mind.

[Cerridwen]

13. Like they are in Libya? Or do you mean Iraq?

Same thing aren't they? Boots on the ground, invasion, empire building.

Oh...never mind.

[steve2470]

14. yep good points nt

[David__77]

15. The Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda REALLY hope for US intervention.

Without it, their war against the people of Syria just might not succeed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. have you spoken to them?

see the thing is....what you suggest means...we should turn the other way if someone is using chemical weapons against the people we don't like...am I right?

[David__77]

34. So it's "turn away" or "launch the missiles?"

Is that the dichotomy here? How about let the UN inspectors first determine whether any banned weapons were even used? That's just a start. Then also look into Khan al Assal and the other sites that were to be investigated. Pressure the insurgents to attend talks with the Syrian government in Geneva (government has already agreed to unconditionally do so, opposition refuses). Work to support a peace accord.

[n2doc]

17. I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

And white phosphorus in the afternoon. It is what us civilized countries use, not like that barbaric and antiquated gas!

[pnwmom]

59. Love napalm? Then you'll adore this little video, filmed this week in Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

They used it on a school playground.

[jessie04]

63. Wow....just wow.

and no one commented on it ?

multiply those weapons x 100 and you get chemical weapons.

[JackRiddler]

18. Good old "Rowanda."

Or whatever other non-existent country or planet your version of facts and logic comes from.

[jessie04]

21. So my spelling sucks.

out of the entire OP , that's what you focus on?

[Cerridwen]

25. Can't address the message? Start on the messenger.

SOP: Standard Operating Procedure.

When learning from the enemy, remember to emulate said enemy. Sun Tzu never said that.

[JackRiddler]

46. It's not the spelling...

It's the bullshit. How little you say, how obvious you make it that you don't know much about what you say, and most of all the way you say it, with aggression, arrogance, and self-righteousness. Nothing about this merits the time for a serious response. Sorry.

[leftstreet]

22. I miss Saddam. Assad just doesn't look like a brutal dictator

Maybe that's why the media aren't SPLASHING his pics everywhere

[Cerridwen]

24. Got punked the first time? Didn't that just suck? n/t

[99Forever]

31. And the 99,700 dead from...

..."other than chemical weapons" before them had no value to you what-so-ever.

Selective "outrage" is so very special.

[Union Scribe]

42. That's how it sounds to me as well.

And it's coming from way too many posters, this idea that it's not so much if but how people are killed.

[Warpy]

32. When our own massive stocks of that shit have been destroyed

maybe we'll have something to say on the subject.

Since it's illegal to use them in war against other nations, perhaps the military is stocking them to use on us.

[pokerfan]

33. It's an outrage

[bunnies]

37. Exactly.

[Bjorn Against]

43. This reminds me of the same crap I used to read about chemical weapons before the war on Iraq

It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[eridani]

44. If you are an empire, the whole world is your animal shelter

You get to decide which beings are cute enough to be saved, and which are disposable human garbage.

Syrian rebels--cute. Bahrain demonstrators--not so cute
Arab Libyans--cute. Black African Libyans--not so cute (have already been mostly ethnically cleansed)
Albanians in Kosovo--cute. Serbs in the Krajina--not so cute (The US actually helped implement the same policy there that Serbs tried to implement on Kosovo.
Wahabis in Saudi Arabia--cute. Wahabis in Pakistan and Afghanistan--not so cute.

Or maybe cute doesn't matter as much as what the 1% want. Otherwise defined as "our" strategic interests. Whatchu mean "we." Kemosabe? Our unelected rulers with no national loyalty whatsoever, or the rest of us poor saps who just live here?

[JackRiddler]

49. ^ Very good post. Rec.

[anneboleyn]

51. Oh man. Excellent post.

[eridani]

45. You are a citizen of the only country in the world not signing on to ban landmines,

clusterbombs and depleted uranium.

Landmines, clusterbombs and depleted uranium are banned by international treaties. The US refuses to sign these treaties, and the US makes, sells and uses them.

Clusterbombs alone have killed more innocent people then all the incidents of using gas the last fifty years combined. And, they have a far more deadly legacy once the hostilities cease.

[JackRiddler]

50. ^ Also ditto.

[Savannahmann]

47. We responded to Hitlers Declaration of war.

We did not initiate that state of affairs. Ribbentrop delivered the note on the 11th of December, three days after we declared on Japan.

On the 11th Germany and Italy declared on us. If they had not we would have had no legal or moral justification to declare war on them.

What is going on in Syria is a civil war. It is by any definition a purely internal matter. There are no good guys to back. There are only bad guys. Bad guys in power. Bad guys dreaming of being in power. They shouldn't be fighting. We should be negotiating a peaceful political solution. 91% of the people think we should not get involved. If we were talking humanitarian aid defined as medicine and food a majority of the people would support it. We have been fighting for twelve years. When is it enough?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

48. You should call 1-888-550-ARMY (2769).

Cyber-recruiters are standing by.


http://www.goarmy.com/talk-with-us/phone.html

[Rex]

57. Did you fail history?

That is a bad mix of FUD salad.

[jessie04]

67. Is that the best response you got?

respond to the OP

[Rex]

68. Post #61 is spot on about you.

Have a great day!

[Alamuti Lotus]

61. I love it when disinguous fanatics pile false dichotomies upon lies upon emotional blackmail

And as an aside, I'm having difficulty locating "Rowanda" on a map--if you're going to use incongruent examples you know nothing about to advance a point that still doesn't make sense, at least spell them correctly.

WWII was about fighting Stalin, not Hitler. The "Allies" capitulated to-, collaborated with-, and held out against fighting Germany for as long as possible in the hopes that the USSR would be destroyed. The United States reluctantly got involved only after its military colony in the occupied Kingdom of Hawai'i was foolishly attacked, and even then held back against declaring war on Germany until after Hitler arrogantly declared war. Even after that point, a land invasion of the continent was delayed only up to the point where it seemed like Stalin's armies would have overrun the entirety of Nazi-occupied Europe. The revisionist histories are really sickening, considering how things actually occurred, but it's not surprising given the more modern PR blitzkrieg about all of those "humanitarian interventions (wars of aggression)" that "the west" likes to engage in every few months.

[jessie04]

64. Interesting...

not one post mentioning Sarin or VX. ( it does make it messy to actually talk specifics)



AND...I'm so glad not ONE post mentioned what they would do if and when biological and nuclear weapons .

Anyone care to take a stand on them?

I guess that also would be "none of our business".

[frustrated_lefty]

65. It's amazing

how atrocities only become our business when there's oil to be had.

[jessie04]

66. oh please

this has NOTHING to do with oil.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

70. Rwanda

yes, Rwanda