The war in Syria (2 Viewers)

[B-Deep]

Well ok not no one

Rand Paul is probably happy to say sit this one out, that's sort of his thing.

 

[timschochet]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

They're not.

This whole idea began when the Bush administration combined nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons together and called them all "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's really stupid IMO.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to the United States. Biological weapons are a threat to the United States. Chemical weapons are not a threat to us. They can do harm in small areas, but so can bombs. Chemical weapons are more horrific, but not especially more dangerous.

 

[timschochet]

Well ok not no one

Rand Paul is probably happy to say sit this one out, that's sort of his thing.

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything. I am NOT an isolationist of any sort.

But I still want to know what we gain from doing this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well ok not no one

Rand Paul is probably happy to say sit this one out, that's sort of his thing.

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything. I am NOT an isolationist of any sort.

But I still want to know what we gain from doing this.

Ha, this part cracks me up: not that you are liberal/prog/Demo, but there is a subtantial majority of that group that in truth really is isolationist today, the Dem/Rep transition has been put off on race issue (southern strategy etc.) but truth is a good number of former Demos fled the party because of just this, the abandonment of the USA role in foreign affairs either via diplomacy or by use of force (but especially the latter).

 

[Politician Spock]

Well ok not no one

Rand Paul is probably happy to say sit this one out, that's sort of his thing.

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything. I am NOT an isolationist of any sort.But I still want to know what we gain from doing this.

I'm wondering the same thing.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that we're trying to get Iran to cross a line with us to justify wiping them out before they wipe Israel out. If this does not lead to a justified engagement against Iran, then what they hell to we gain from this?.... Absolutely nothing!

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm still holding out hope that this is all just tough talk and nothing is going to happen. I just don't see the point of lobbing cruise missiles.

Obama has backed himself into the corner at this point. To finish this with "I was just keeeeding!!" would emasculate him.

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

You seem to be changing your point now that your first point is clearly toothless. You 'begged to differ' on my point that the threat Iraq posed to us was non existent and fabricated. A country that actually has WMDs is infinitely more of a threat to us than one who doesn't. Now, I am not arguing that Syria does pose a threat to us, just that your point was falsely presented as a counter to mine and you moving the goalposts doesn't change that.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

They're not.

This whole idea began when the Bush administration combined nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons together and called them all "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's really stupid IMO.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to the United States. Biological weapons are a threat to the United States. Chemical weapons are not a threat to us. They can do harm in small areas, but so can bombs. Chemical weapons are more horrific, but not especially more dangerous.

That's my point... kind of. The White House said yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons were a threat to us. I don't get the justification. He said there's no fabrication to lead us into war. But it sure sounds like coming from the WH. I'm not saying that's not OK. I'm just saying let's not accuse one side of something and be fine when the other side uses the same tactics.

 

[B-Deep]

Well ok not no one

Rand Paul is probably happy to say sit this one out, that's sort of his thing.

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything. I am NOT an isolationist of any sort.

But I still want to know what we gain from doing this.

i thin the thought on what we gain is this

Everyone has agree chemical weapons are a big no-no, that being said if someone uses them they must be punished, Failure to do so only encourages future use. IF Syria used these and IUF it can be proved and IF no one does anything, why wouldn't they use them again

and again

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

You seem to be changing your point now that your first point is clearly toothless. You 'begged to differ' on my point that the threat Iraq posed to us was non existent and fabricated. A country that actually has WMDs is infinitely more of a threat to us than one who doesn't. Now, I am not arguing that Syria does pose a threat to us, just that your point was falsely presented as a counter to mine and you moving the goalposts doesn't change that.

What are you talking about? My point has never changed. You said we wouldn't be lied to in order to move us to agreeing to war. I said that they are justifying an attack by saying Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to us. Where have I moved your goalposts?

 

[B-Deep]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

They're not.

This whole idea began when the Bush administration combined nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons together and called them all "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's really stupid IMO.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to the United States. Biological weapons are a threat to the United States. Chemical weapons are not a threat to us. They can do harm in small areas, but so can bombs. Chemical weapons are more horrific, but not especially more dangerous.

they are different because bombs because there is a general global agreement that they are worse than conventional weapons and should not be used in any circumstance

now does that mean anyone using them anywhere constitutes a nthreat to the US? seems like a stretch

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

You seem to be changing your point now that your first point is clearly toothless. You 'begged to differ' on my point that the threat Iraq posed to us was non existent and fabricated. A country that actually has WMDs is infinitely more of a threat to us than one who doesn't. Now, I am not arguing that Syria does pose a threat to us, just that your point was falsely presented as a counter to mine and you moving the goalposts doesn't change that.

What are you talking about? My point has never changed. You said we wouldn't be lied to in order to move us to agreeing to war. I said that they are justifying an attack by saying Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to us. Where have I moved your goalposts?

I just told you. You're trying to equate a country that had no WMDs with one that does. You went even further by pointing out that they used them a decade prior to being scoured clean of them as if that somehow helped further your point.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

You seem to be changing your point now that your first point is clearly toothless. You 'begged to differ' on my point that the threat Iraq posed to us was non existent and fabricated. A country that actually has WMDs is infinitely more of a threat to us than one who doesn't. Now, I am not arguing that Syria does pose a threat to us, just that your point was falsely presented as a counter to mine and you moving the goalposts doesn't change that.

What are you talking about? My point has never changed. You said we wouldn't be lied to in order to move us to agreeing to war. I said that they are justifying an attack by saying Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to us. Where have I moved your goalposts?

I just told you. You're trying to equate a country that had no WMDs with one that does. You went even further by pointing out that they used them a decade prior to being scoured clean of them as if that somehow helped further your point.

OK. You win. Sorry I'm trying to justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Ilov80s]

http://on.rt.com/ah4vtt

For whatever it's worth, Russian need outlet reports Syria is asking the UN to investigate 3 sites where they claim rebel forces used chemical weapons on Syrian forces.

 

[johnnycakes]

The most convincing argument yet in favor of striking Syria: Dennis "Spaceman" Kucinich opposes it.

Kucinich: Striking Syria Will Make U.S. Military ‘Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’

Former congressman Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) said today that striking Syria would turn the United States military into “al-Qaeda’s air force.”

Kucinich, who voted against the Iraq War and campaigned for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004 and 2008, lambasted the idea that Obama could act without congressional authorization, which he said would be a violation of the Constitution. He also warned that intervening in Syria would entangle the United States in another war in the Middle East and encourage Islamists who are fighting the forces of Syrian president Bashar Assad.

“So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich sarcastically asked The Hill.

He went on to warn against attempting to “minimize” an intervention by terming it a “targeted strike.” Such a strike, he said, would still constitute an act of war.

Kucinich also blasted the Obama administration for “rushing” into what he said could become a third world war, and he cast doubt on reports by rebels of governmental forces using chemical weapons. He declared that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a “pretext.”

“The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered,” Kucinich said. “What does that tell you?”

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes. If they were used within a year of invasion, ie after GW1 and a decade of weapons inspectors and other UN and international presences, then the idea that Iraq slam dunk had them isn't preposterous or fabricated.

I feel like you're arguing against an invasion of Iraq. My point is that the White House is saying that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S. Syria has never threatened the U.S. Why are the weapons a threat to the U.S.?

You seem to be changing your point now that your first point is clearly toothless. You 'begged to differ' on my point that the threat Iraq posed to us was non existent and fabricated. A country that actually has WMDs is infinitely more of a threat to us than one who doesn't. Now, I am not arguing that Syria does pose a threat to us, just that your point was falsely presented as a counter to mine and you moving the goalposts doesn't change that.

What are you talking about? My point has never changed. You said we wouldn't be lied to in order to move us to agreeing to war. I said that they are justifying an attack by saying Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to us. Where have I moved your goalposts?

I just told you. You're trying to equate a country that had no WMDs with one that does. You went even further by pointing out that they used them a decade prior to being scoured clean of them as if that somehow helped further your point.

OK. You win. Sorry I'm trying to justify the invasion of Iraq.

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not.

Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

 

[johnnycakes]

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty ####### stupid."

American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 -- the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors' accounts and video documentation of the tragedy -- are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.

However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.

There is an ongoing debate within the Obama administration about whether to strike Assad immediately -- or whether to allow United Nations inspectors to try and collect that proof before the bombing begins. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the work of that team "redundant ... because it is clearly established already that chemical weapons have been used on a significant scale."

But within the intelligence community, at least, "there's an interest in letting the U.N. piece run its course," the official said. "It puts the period on the end of the sentence."

When news about the Ghouta incident first trickled out, there were questions about whether or not a chemical agent was to blame for the massacre. But when weapons experts and U.S. intelligence analysts began reviewing the dozens of videos and pictures allegedly taken from the scene of the attacks, they quickly concluded that a nerve gas, such as sarin, had been used there. The videos showed young victims who were barely able to breathe and, in some cases, twitching. Close-up photos revealed that their pupils were severely constricted. Doctors and nurses who say they treated the victims reported that they later became short of breath as well. Eyewitnesses talk of young children so confused, they couldn't even indentify their own parents. All of these are classic signs of exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, the Assad regime's chemical weapon of choice.

Making the case even more conclusive were the images of the missiles that supposedly delivered the deadly attacks. If they were carrying conventional warheads, they would have likely been all but destroyed as they detonated. But several missiles in East Ghouta were found largely intact. "Why is there so much rocket left? There shouldn't be so much rocket left," the intelligence official told The Cable. The answer, the official and his colleagues concluded, was that the weapon was filled with nerve agent, not a conventional explosive.

In the days after the attacks, there was a great deal of public discussion about which side in Syria's horrific civil war actually launched the strike. Allies of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, pointed the finger at the opposition. The intercepted communications told a different story -- one in which the Syrian government was clearly to blame.

The official White House line is that the president is still considering his options for Syria. But all of Washington is talking about a punitive strike on the Assad government in terms of when, not if. Even some congressional doves have said they're now at least open to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Images of dead children, neatly stacked in rows, have a way of changing minds.

"It's horrible, it's stupid," the intelligence official said about the East Ghouta attack by the Syrian military. "Whatever happens in the next few days -- they get what they deserve."

 

[FlapJacks]

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything

Why? I am happy when others adopt my position, regardless of what other issues I disagree with them on.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

Weird how the Kurds got into the conversation if you aren't bringing Iraq into it. You brought an article, that btw is more than just an 'it's a direct threat to us' statement, to counter my claim that the entire Iraq threat was fabricated from top to bottom. Then you used the Kurd attacks to further try and tie the two situations together. Then you decide you just want to drop it and pretend you weren't trying to directly counter my points and equate the two scenarios, since both of your first two points were inapplicable.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

Weird how the Kurds got into the conversation if you aren't bringing Iraq into it. You brought an article, that btw is more than just an 'it's a direct threat to us' statement, to counter my claim that the entire Iraq threat was fabricated from top to bottom. Then you used the Kurd attacks to further try and tie the two situations together. Then you decide you just want to drop it and pretend you weren't trying to directly counter my points and equate the two scenarios, since both of your first two points were inapplicable.

OK. You win more.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

Weird how the Kurds got into the conversation if you aren't bringing Iraq into it. You brought an article, that btw is more than just an 'it's a direct threat to us' statement, to counter my claim that the entire Iraq threat was fabricated from top to bottom. Then you used the Kurd attacks to further try and tie the two situations together. Then you decide you just want to drop it and pretend you weren't trying to directly counter my points and equate the two scenarios, since both of your first two points were inapplicable.

OK. You win more.

I accept you apology and tacit admission of being wrong.

 

[roadkill1292]

Jesus Christ, Sweeney.

 

[timschochet]

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything

Why? I am happy when others adopt my position, regardless of what other issues I disagree with them on.

That's true. But he annoys me so. And I'm nearly 100% sure that his reasons for opposing this action (I'm assuming he will oppose it) are very different from mine.

 

[Rich Conway]

Man I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything

Why? I am happy when others adopt my position, regardless of what other issues I disagree with them on.

That's true. But he annoys me so. And I'm nearly 100% sure that his reasons for opposing this action (I'm assuming he will oppose it) are very different from mine.

There you go ascribing negative motives to the policies of someone else again.

 

[rascal]

"The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted.

Can we steal this guy from Russia?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Tomahawks run about $1.45M each these days.

• 161 were used in Libya
• Gulf War II - 725
• Enduring Freedom - 50
• Yugoslavia (1999) - 218
• Operation Desert Fox (Iraq - 1998) - 325
• Afghanistan/Sudan (1998) - 75 in retaliation to Al-Qaeda embassy bombings
• Serbia - 13
• Desert Storm - 288, another 23 two years later, and 44 three years after that

In all we've fired almost 2,000 cruise missiles over the last quarter century.

Over/under on how many we can launch in three days? Any Aegis class destroyer in the area carries 56 each. The USN has about 3,500 of these worldwide, not sure how many are currently deployed in the Sixth Fleet. Plus all the B-52s out of Diego Garcia or a number of other locations.

Grab a snickers.

Yeah, not so sure I agree with you on that price.

Why? Because the USN site has been quoting $569K since 1999?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Tomahawks run about $1.45M each these days.

• 161 were used in Libya
• Gulf War II - 725
• Enduring Freedom - 50
• Yugoslavia (1999) - 218
• Operation Desert Fox (Iraq - 1998) - 325
• Afghanistan/Sudan (1998) - 75 in retaliation to Al-Qaeda embassy bombings
• Serbia - 13
• Desert Storm - 288, another 23 two years later, and 44 three years after that

In all we've fired almost 2,000 cruise missiles over the last quarter century.

Over/under on how many we can launch in three days? Any Aegis class destroyer in the area carries 56 each. The USN has about 3,500 of these worldwide, not sure how many are currently deployed in the Sixth Fleet. Plus all the B-52s out of Diego Garcia or a number of other locations.

Grab a snickers.

Yeah, not so sure I agree with you on that price.

Why? Because the USN site has been quoting $569K since 1999?

I know a guy who can get you a couple for a much better deal.

 

[rascal]

Tomahawks run about $1.45M each these days.

• 161 were used in Libya
• Gulf War II - 725
• Enduring Freedom - 50
• Yugoslavia (1999) - 218
• Operation Desert Fox (Iraq - 1998) - 325
• Afghanistan/Sudan (1998) - 75 in retaliation to Al-Qaeda embassy bombings
• Serbia - 13
• Desert Storm - 288, another 23 two years later, and 44 three years after that

In all we've fired almost 2,000 cruise missiles over the last quarter century.

Over/under on how many we can launch in three days? Any Aegis class destroyer in the area carries 56 each. The USN has about 3,500 of these worldwide, not sure how many are currently deployed in the Sixth Fleet. Plus all the B-52s out of Diego Garcia or a number of other locations.

Grab a snickers.

Yeah, not so sure I agree with you on that price.

Why? Because the USN site has been quoting $569K since 1999?

I thought it was more expensive, but I looked it up and apparently not.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Tomahawks run about $1.45M each these days.

• 161 were used in Libya
• Gulf War II - 725
• Enduring Freedom - 50
• Yugoslavia (1999) - 218
• Operation Desert Fox (Iraq - 1998) - 325
• Afghanistan/Sudan (1998) - 75 in retaliation to Al-Qaeda embassy bombings
• Serbia - 13
• Desert Storm - 288, another 23 two years later, and 44 three years after that

In all we've fired almost 2,000 cruise missiles over the last quarter century.

Over/under on how many we can launch in three days? Any Aegis class destroyer in the area carries 56 each. The USN has about 3,500 of these worldwide, not sure how many are currently deployed in the Sixth Fleet. Plus all the B-52s out of Diego Garcia or a number of other locations.

Grab a snickers.

Yeah, not so sure I agree with you on that price.

Why? Because the USN site has been quoting $569K since 1999?

I know a guy who can get you a couple for a much better deal.

Everybody's always got a guy. My guy is great, my guy gives me a great deal, my guy is the best.

Gotta admit, I don't have a tomahawk guy.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted.

Can we steal this guy from Russia?

Hilarious.

 

[cstu]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

What did I miss?

 

[Kal El]

I really hope that we stay out of yet another war in the Middle east. Clearly the US had never listened to the wise words of Vizzini, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

What did I miss?

Not sure what you're asking.

 

[Fennis]

"The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted.

Can we steal this guy from Russia?

The Russians don't exactly have a good track record with Muslims.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

 

[Fennis]

I really hope that we stay out of yet another war in the Middle east. Clearly the US had never listened to the wise words of Vizzini, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

We wont get involved in a land war in Syria.

 

[cstu]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

What did I miss?

Not sure what you're asking.

I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

What did I miss?

Not sure what you're asking.

I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.

I posted the link earlier, but truncated this quote because it was getting huge. Here's the article.

 

[Fennis]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

What did I miss?

Not sure what you're asking.

I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.

Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security- Jay Carney

 

[rascal]

"The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted.

Can we steal this guy from Russia?

The Russians don't exactly have a good track record with Muslims.

still funny

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

Are we sure he wasn't talking about you?

I've kind of checked out the last couple pages. So I'm not sure who he's talking about, actually.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

Are we sure he wasn't talking about you?

Fairly sure, since I haven't taken a position on Syria yet.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

Are we sure he wasn't talking about you?

Fairly sure, since I haven't taken a position on Syria yet.

Might I suggest missionary?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

Are we sure he wasn't talking about you?

Fairly sure, since I haven't taken a position on Syria yet.

Juuuust checking.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

Are we sure he wasn't talking about you?

Fairly sure, since I haven't taken a position on Syria yet.

That's funny, neither has our president.

 

[higgins]

link

The U.S. Plans to Strike Syria. What Then?Officials are discussing a range of detailed plans for a targeted military strike in Syria ahead of an expected announcement this week from President Barack Obama on a U.S. military response to the recent chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held suburb of Damascus.

The U.S. says Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime is to blame for the attack, which killed at least 355 people — many of them families still in their beds — and wounded at least 3,000 more.

The U.S. determined in June that Assad had used chemical weapons, including sarin gas, “multiple times” last year, killing between 100 to 150 people. But the administration decided not to intervene then because it said Assad had not engaged in widespread use of such weapons.

Now, the U.S. has drawn up a list of military targets designed to punish the regime for what’s considered a violation of international law.

Obama has reportedly ruled out strikes intended to topple the Assad regime, and the administration says it won’t hit chemical weapons deposits, for fear of worsening the humanitarian crisis.

So if the U.S. moves forward with limited air strikes, what happens next?

“It seems pretty clear that we’re not looking at an end to the fighting any time soon as a result of anything the administration is contemplating,” said Joe Stork, the deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division.

The conflict in Syria has now claimed at least 100,000 lives, according to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The U.N. has said its estimate is conservative, since so many deaths have likely gone unreported amid the violence.

Another 1.7 million Syrians have fled, seeking refuge in neighboring countries like Jordan, who fear being drawn into the conflict. Air strikes would only increase the flow of displaced Syrians, Stork said.

“It’s difficult for me to imagine how the military strikes that are being considered will improve the situation,” he said. “It’s likely to make it worse. The question is how much worse.”

A scathing report (pdf) in June from the International Crisis Group on the international response to the Syrian conflict so far said that targeted air strikes would be “half-way measures” that at best might erode the regime’s military capacity or shake up the balance of power among the rebels.

After a strategic military victory in early June, the regime has been gaining momentum in recent months, said Randa Slim, a political analyst at the Middle East Institute. Airstrikes could check that.

But, the ICG report found, limited airstrikes “would not produce what its promoters typically claim as justification: moving the regime to seriously negotiate a genuine transition.” It suggested that the U.S. and its allies would be miscalculating in thinking they could now persuade Assad — either militarily or otherwise — to agree to some kind of political resolution.

“Ultimately it would mean getting further sucked into a dangerously intensifying and malignant Sunni-Shiite sectarian regional conflict in which the West would be running a risk by picking favorites,” the report said.

 

[jamny]

It's interesting to see some of the usual suspects flip flop when it's their guy/not their guy calling the shots this time.

FBG chickenhawks:

Ground war in Iraq, costing trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives, based on non-existent WMDs? Go get'em Dubbya!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria after a chemical weapons attack? WTF IS OBAMA DOING?!?!?

Who is saying that.

I think if it's proven that Assad launched chemical weapons, we should not let it go unpunished.

 

[cstu]

I'm glad to see you keep missing the point. I never said anything about your support of Iraq. I was only showing why your initial reply to me was wrong. I'm sorry you can't follow it.

You keep bringing Iraq into it. I'm not. Key points:

• You say the Iraq invasion was fueled by lies
• You say the possible attack of Syria is not fueled by lies
• I say that the White House stated yesterday that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the U.S.
• I say that is a lie and that Syria's chemical weapons are not a threat to us

See how I'm saying I beg to differ about your statement of this time it not being based off of lies? Iraq = lies. Syria = lies. Are we on the same page yet? Either way, you win. Keep arguing about how I've changed the goalposts.

What did I miss?

Not sure what you're asking.

I missed what the White House said about Syrian chemical weapons being a threat to the U.S.

I posted the link earlier, but truncated this quote because it was getting huge. Here's the article.

Thanks.

“I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present significant challenge to, threat to the United States’ national security,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

"Next question?"

"How?"