The war in Syria (4 Viewers)

[Andy Dufresne]

This guy Assad is a cautionary tale. Raised and educated in the west, he rebelled against his father's despotic rule, wanting only to be a doctor (he studied ophthalmology in England). His older brother's death in a car crash put him in line for the head of government. But before he got there, he talked about how liberalism and democracy were his ultimate goals; how he wanted to increase trade, allow free expression of ideas, and even hinted about a peace treaty with Israel.

All that changed the moment his father died (in 2000). Assad ran for office unopposed. Rather than allowing more free expression of ideas, he increased the number of political prisoners. Rather than have peace with Israel, he threw his support behind Hezbollah. In short, he became exactly the same sort of despot that his father was before him, and now it appears that he will do anything to stay in power.

Obi Wan reacts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

Now see there we go. Maybe I'm a democrat, others are Democrats.

Very few of us around I guess.

 

[Geezil]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

thats another argument altogether. republic. its a bit different. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm

good posting btw.

 

[Geezil]

It actually did work out pretty well in those countries. So I'm cool wirth it.

In what alternate reality? Because that sure isn't at all true in this one.

I work at Walter Reed and every day I see people missing all sorts of limbs hobbling around base. And those are the ones who were lucky enough to live. I'd ask them if they think their leg or arm was worth the current state of affairs in Afganistan or Iraq, but I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

Wow. I admire you greatly for the work yoU do and know I couldn't do it myself.Iraq was a huge mistake. Afghanistan has been tragic, but inevitable: after 9/11 we couldn't leave the ataliban in power. Iraq was NOT inevitable: we had choices and made the wrong ones.

As regards the soldiers, I hope they are at least receiving the very best care possible. I have read news stories at times which suggests they haven't been, which always enrages me. The one saving grace that distinguishes these wars from the Vietnam debacle is that all of the soldiers were volunteers this time around.

i dont see how afghanistan was inevitable. the taliban WILL be in power again there, its just a matter of time.

so what did we gain? in my opinion nothing,

although, IF the reasons we actually went there were to temporarily remove the taliban, establish a puppet government destined for long term failure, and waste quite a large chunk of change, not to mention countless deaths on both sides. then SUCCESS!

as a nation, we did EXACTLY what bin laden expected us to do. how do u kill a giant? a million small cuts.

I think you're wrong on this.

There's no way to prove this any more than saying you or I know that Doug Martin will have more FFP than CJ Spiller this year or vice versa, but in my opinion elections in Afghanistan and Iraq have opened a can of democratic rebellion in the rest of the middle east, it has been all about elections, it has been all about getting our forces out of the Saudi peninsula (where they were since Gulf War 1 in 1990), it has been about protecting Israel, and it has been about protecting our interests abroad (including oil and what that means to our economy) and safety at home.

This is one big holistic picture, Obama has carried on Bush Sr's, and Jr's policies there (with some key details missing). If people wanted anything else they should have voted for Kucinich.

i appreciate your viewpoint. i disagree, but man ive been wrong many times before, so who knows. and kucinich was a losing horse from the get go. its a popularity contest anymore and i dont see him as ever being "popular".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

thats another argument altogether. republic. its a bit different. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm

good posting btw.

This is key:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Those elections are democratic, to me our republic is a form of democracy, and a great one.

To me, when our Constitution says that our president needs Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, that is meaningless if we take that to mean a true declaration of something the executive decides. To me, the only way this clause makes sense is if our republican (small 'r' folks) Congress approves and must have the power to approve (or not) the ability to go to war (except in extreme, exigent situations such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11/01 attacks, surprise attacks, imminent self defense, etc.).

 

[timschochet]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

 

[Geezil]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

thats another argument altogether. republic. its a bit different. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm

good posting btw.

This is key:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Those elections are democratic, to me our republic is a form of democracy, and a great one.

To me, when our Constitution says that our president needs Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, that is meaningless if we take that to mean a true declaration of something the executive decides. To me, the only way this clause makes sense is if our republican (small 'r' folks) Congress approves and must have the power to approve (or not) the ability to go to war (except in extreme, exigent situations such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11/01 attacks, surprise attacks, imminent self defense, etc.).

electoral college. its different.

i agree with ur following point, but the president can NOT declare war and it can still look ALOT like war. then what?

 

[Geezil]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

i disagree. great leadership is not fear based, it is simply leadership. we would, in my opinion, have had much more success, much faster had we chosen to respond in a less "Hey, we are coming in hmmmm, a few months. Don't go anywhere. You hear me Osama, DO NOT LEAVE!" kinda way.

 

[mad sweeney]

Is it only officially defined a moral obscenity when it happens in the middle east? Where is Kerry's official outrage at the moral obscenities going on in Sudan or the Congo?

Not getting enough pub oil to bother with.

 

[Slapdash]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

 

[TheIronSheik]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

Pretty sure SA has never supported Osama.

 

[Slapdash]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

Dangerous to people that think that bureaucrats always know best.

 

[timschochet]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

If the Saudi government had publicly announced after 9/11, "#### yeah! Osama's one of ours! Go baby go!!!!" Or something to that effect, Mecca would have been bombed the next day.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

thats another argument altogether. republic. its a bit different. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm

good posting btw.

This is key:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Those elections are democratic, to me our republic is a form of democracy, and a great one.

To me, when our Constitution says that our president needs Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, that is meaningless if we take that to mean a true declaration of something the executive decides. To me, the only way this clause makes sense is if our republican (small 'r' folks) Congress approves and must have the power to approve (or not) the ability to go to war (except in extreme, exigent situations such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11/01 attacks, surprise attacks, imminent self defense, etc.).

electoral college. its different.

i agree with ur following point, but the president can NOT declare war and it can still look ALOT like war. then what?

EC is the president of course, but Congress is a direct election.

And to me war is war is war. Bombing or strafing Libya (Obama) or Sudan (Clinton), pre-2001 Afghanistan (Clinton) or Bosnia (Clinton) is war. Shelling Lebanon (Reagan) or invading Grenada (Reagan) is war.

But I realize that practices have varied from the ideal (and from how I personally think the Constitution should be read), so if the questions is "then what?", well the answer is if we just follow precedent then the president can bomb the s**+ out of Syria, and not ask his base, not ask the opposition, not ask the co-equal branches, not ask the People what they care or think about it.

(And I still say that is neither democratic, nor a republic, nor constitutional).

 

[timschochet]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

Dangerous to people that think that bureaucrats always know best.

You realize the NSA is reading this, right? You just made their list.

 

[Politician Spock]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

Pretty sure SA has never supported Osama.

It would be pretty hard to show that SA has... but it would be even harder to show that SA hasn't.

 

[Slapdash]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

Pretty sure SA has never supported Osama.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=0

Pretty sure these two senators would have a better idea.

 

[Geezil]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

thats another argument altogether. republic. its a bit different. http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm

good posting btw.

This is key:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Those elections are democratic, to me our republic is a form of democracy, and a great one.

To me, when our Constitution says that our president needs Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, that is meaningless if we take that to mean a true declaration of something the executive decides. To me, the only way this clause makes sense is if our republican (small 'r' folks) Congress approves and must have the power to approve (or not) the ability to go to war (except in extreme, exigent situations such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11/01 attacks, surprise attacks, imminent self defense, etc.).

electoral college. its different.

i agree with ur following point, but the president can NOT declare war and it can still look ALOT like war. then what?

EC is the president of course, but Congress is a direct election.

And to me war is war is war. Bombing or strafing Libya (Obama) or Sudan (Clinton) or Bosnia (Clinton) is war. Shelling Lebanon (Reagan) or invading Grenada (Reagan) is war.

But I realize that practices have varied from the ideal (and from how I personally think the Constitution should be read), so if the questions is "then what?", well the answer is if we just follow precedent then the president can bomb the s**+ out of Syria, and not ask his base, not ask the opposition, not ask the co-equal branches, not ask the People what they care or think about it.

i think we are in agreement. i am against war, unless absolutely necessary. im not sure i have seen an absolutely necessary war in my 40 years.

 

[msommer]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

Pretty sure SA has never supported Osama.

At least not since the '80'ies.

 

[moleculo]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

 

[Slapdash]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

Dangerous to people that think that bureaucrats always know best.

You realize the NSA is reading this, right? You just made their list.

I've been on that list a long time. I'm sure they appreciate your blind trust in the government and hatred of the will of the people.

 

[Politician Spock]

Personally I believe the president is obligated to go to Congress for permission to do this (and even if you think he is not legally obligated then I think he should anyway).

You raise a very interesting question here. Since Eisenhower, each and every President has increased the amount of executive authority over the use of the military. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires a 48 hour notification to Congress and limits the President to 60 days use of military force without the approval of Congress. Every President since 1973 without exception has held that this act is unConstitutional. Reagan and Clinton both deliberately violated it openly, which might have caused the Supreme Court to review, but in both instances Congress chose to take no action.

This is my thought about democracy: we should practice it.

No we shouldn't. We have never had a democracy. Democracy is very dangerous.

Dangerous to people that think that bureaucrats always know best.

You realize the NSA is reading this, right? You just made their list.

I've been on that list a long time. I'm sure they appreciate your blind trust in the government and hatred of the will of the people.

Timschochet gets invited to their Christmas parties.

 

[timschochet]

Slapdash, that's why I used the word PUBLICLY. The Taliban PUBLICLY supported Osama, and that's why it was inevitable that we had to invade Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia may have approved privately. A whole lot of Islamic nations did, and I say #### all of them. But if it's not said publicly, not much we're going to do about it. Especially in the case of Saudi. We turn a blind eye to how they abuse their women over there, and Christians, and a whole lot of other ####.

 

[Geezil]

i think to the rest of the world, the USA is a circus run by a bunch of clowns. and the rest of the world just looks at us and laughs, but its nervous laughter, because they can tell we are a bit crazy.

 

[Ilov80s]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Assad loses control of the country to the rebels. Maybe he gasses more people on his way out, maybe not. I don't think anyone really knows.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

i think to the rest of the world, the USA is a circus run by a bunch of clowns. and the rest of the world just looks at us and laughs, but its nervous laughter, because they can tell we are a bit crazy.

In the land of the witless the half-wit is king.

 

[Slapdash]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

If the Saudi government had publicly announced after 9/11, "#### yeah! Osama's one of ours! Go baby go!!!!" Or something to that effect, Mecca would have been bombed the next day.

Sure, let's just start a holy war!

 

[msommer]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

 

[Slapdash]

Slapdash, that's why I used the word PUBLICLY. The Taliban PUBLICLY supported Osama, and that's why it was inevitable that we had to invade Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia may have approved privately. A whole lot of Islamic nations did, and I say #### all of them. But if it's not said publicly, not much we're going to do about it. Especially in the case of Saudi. We turn a blind eye to how they abuse their women over there, and Christians, and a whole lot of other ####.

Probably has more to do with the cozy relationship our government has with the royal family. Particularly our former president.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Slapdash, that's why I used the word PUBLICLY. The Taliban PUBLICLY supported Osama, and that's why it was inevitable that we had to invade Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia may have approved privately. A whole lot of Islamic nations did, and I say #### all of them. But if it's not said publicly, not much we're going to do about it. Especially in the case of Saudi. We turn a blind eye to how they abuse their women over there, and Christians, and a whole lot of other ####.

Probably has more to do with the cozy relationship our government has with the royal family. Particularly our former president.

Ha, yeah, our current president has done lots to distance himself from the Saudis.

Last I checked Bush Jr. revoked the Saudis special travel privileges and Obama reimplemented them.

 

[moleculo]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

 

[Politician Spock]

AWWW ####!

If this report is true, fuel just got dumped on this fire.

Collapse reported on Temple Mounthttp://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24078/Default.aspx?hp=readmore

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

AWWW ####!

If this report is true, fuel just got dumped on this fire.

Collapse reported on Temple Mounthttp://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24078/Default.aspx?hp=readmore

That's definitely Baddish.

I think the Israelis have underground rights to do archaeological work there. The conspiracy talk from the Palestinians is just hogwash, but it's enough to know that the Arans could believe it just not do it in the first place.

If anything happens there the UN will need 5-10K strong just to keep them apart.

 

[msommer]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

 

[NCCommish]

Aren't we energy independent now...who cares about the middle east. Let countries that need their oil worry about it. We got problems to fix at home.

No we aren't. We still import about 4 million bpd. We will likely never be fully independent unless we go heavily renewable.

We are not physically dependent upon OPEC oil. We choose to purchase and import oil from OPEC for geopolitical and economic reasons. It's far more complicated than simply stating that our country relies on OPEC.

We use roughly 18 million barrels a day just for our cars. In March of this year we hit production of 7 million barrels a day. Perhaps you can do the math and show me how we are not dependent on imported oil primarily from OPEC?

 

[msommer]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

 

[NCCommish]

AWWW ####!

If this report is true, fuel just got dumped on this fire.

Collapse reported on Temple Mounthttp://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24078/Default.aspx?hp=readmore

Looks like the Muslims only have themselves to blame for this.

 

[Politician Spock]

AWWW ####!

If this report is true, fuel just got dumped on this fire.

Collapse reported on Temple Mounthttp://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24078/Default.aspx?hp=readmore

Looks like the Muslims only have themselves to blame for this.

I'm sure they'll see it that way.

 

[Slapdash]

Slapdash, that's why I used the word PUBLICLY. The Taliban PUBLICLY supported Osama, and that's why it was inevitable that we had to invade Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia may have approved privately. A whole lot of Islamic nations did, and I say #### all of them. But if it's not said publicly, not much we're going to do about it. Especially in the case of Saudi. We turn a blind eye to how they abuse their women over there, and Christians, and a whole lot of other ####.

Probably has more to do with the cozy relationship our government has with the royal family. Particularly our former president.

Ha, yeah, our current president has done lots to distance himself from the Saudis.

Last I checked Bush Jr. revoked the Saudis special travel privileges and Obama reimplemented them.

I didn't say he has.

 

[msommer]

AWWW ####!

If this report is true, fuel just got dumped on this fire.

Collapse reported on Temple Mounthttp://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24078/Default.aspx?hp=readmore

Looks like the Muslims only have themselves to blame for this.

I'm sure they'll see it that way.

What ever happened to Insha'Allah? That only works if things go well?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I wrote that our venture in Afghanistan was inevitable in order to distinguish it from Iraq. 9/11 happened, the Taliban was supporting Osama, no way we're not going to invade Afghanistan. If Bush had refused to do so he would have been impeached- it would have been like FDR refusing to go to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Not gonna happen.

Or America refusing to go to war with Saudi Arabia after their support of Osama. Wait....

Pretty sure SA has never supported Osama.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=0

Pretty sure these two senators would have a better idea.

Two senators thinking SA was involved is not really proof, now, is it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

That's a possibility.

It's not easy being president.

"What happens next?" That's the question every president should be asking in this situation.

In Iraq, beating the Iraqi military was a relative breeze. What happened next was the breakdown of security, the escape of the Fedayin, and the instigation of baathist/AQ guerilla war.

I remember when Hisbullah went to war with Israel a few years back and one issue with our intervening or Israel going into Lebanon was whether Hisbullah and their buddies in Iran would have sleeper cells they would activate here and abroad.

We could blow up an ammo dump as a "demonstration" of what we could do; or we could take out the whole Syrian air force, or maybe just their air defense system. We could send a cruise missile into Assad's family's living room too. All options are on the table, but no matter what we would have to be prepared for anything including full out war.

 

[tommyGunZ]

so it seems like you supported a war based on who was president.

That's quite the leap there, bro.

For: Iraq, Afghanistan. Against: Libya, Syria

Bro.

Based on evidence, not who is sitting in the center seat.

And I don't recall saying anything about Libya.

War's not the answer here, I agree. I'm just theorizing that a lot of people will think it's okay as long as it's their guy initiating it.

Great stuff here - comedians couldn't even write this stuff.

The "based on evidence" part is the cherry on top.

 

[cstu]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

 

[NCCommish]

Question: what happens if we don't knock Syria over?

Prolonged civil war kills more thousands. More atrocities are done in the name of Assad or Islam or Democracy or Freedom. The existing power structure crumples and eventually another leader takes over. We have little or no control over who that is or what his future policies will be, or indeed who he'll align with.

Pretty much the same as if the west puts boots on the ground. And this one, like Iraq, will require boots on the ground.

would it also provide a sort of cover for other despots to go ahead and use chem weapons on their population? If nothing happened to the guy in Syria, why would cause any other dictator to re-think gassing his people?

Possibly. Why do you think Assad has them? Probably because Israel has nukes.

Yes, Israle has nukes, but when did they acquire them?

In the seventies I guess. Think they don't work anymore? I hope they won't be used

Anyway, Assad is sure to be willing to use his chemical arsenal on any invading force, or possibly Israel, so there'd better be a big store of ABC suits stockpiled and ready for use.

Wonder what Irael's response will be if Tel Aviv is bombarded with Sarin from Syria...

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

 

[TheIronSheik]

No country has done anything to Israel since they've had nukes. They aren't about to either. The extent of Israel's 'wars' since then have been against the PLO and Palestinian uprisings.

Wasn't Iraq lobbing SCUD missiles into Israel?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

Yeah, but it's Iran. Screw them.

 

[NCCommish]

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

Yeah, but it's Iran. Screw them.

you make an interesting point.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Israel shouldn't have nukes. Because of us the supposedly nuclear free zone of the mid-east was done away with. And since we make no demands on Israel to get in compliance with international law for those who do possess nukes we come off looking like hypocrites when we go after Iran.

Yeah, but it's Iran. Screw them.

you make an interesting point.