| Author | Message | ||
     Wolfridgerider |
there is no difference between gassing a population and walking through a town shooting them the end result may be the same... but how you get there is horrific when it come to chemical weapons. take it from a guy that got to do PT in a gas chamber a few times.... I think chemical warfare would be the absolute worst way to die | ||
| Hootowl |
Yeah, I've been in a similar, if not the same, place. It wasn't fun. On the other hand, I've never been gut shot and left to die. I hear that's a pretty bad way to go too. We simply believe that one is OK, and one is not. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is. | ||
| Fahren |
From a guy whose stuff makes for a good read: There's a common expression that military commanders like to use in times like this-- 'you can't be a little bit pregnant.' Translation: you either go to war, or you don't. You can't halfway go to war. You can't 'sort of' go to war. And if you do, it'd better be for a damn good reason. This is one of the reasons why, in the United States, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution REQUIRING that the Commander-in-Chief to seek Congressional approval before declaring war. The idea was to prevent frivolous military conflict-- to keep the President from having royal powers to invade foreign lands and wage war in his sole discretion. Early settlers in the colonies had experienced enough of this during the Seven Years' War, which had wiped 350,000 people off the face of the earth across five continents just prior to the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers saw the absurdity in awarding a single individual with such extreme power to drag his entire nation into war. So they carefully structured limitations in the Constitution. Such provisions have long since been ignored in the Land of the Free. And nearly every conflict fought has been utterly futile. Desert I remember how devastated I felt as a young intelligence officer sitting in the Kuwaiti desert in early 2003 watching Colin Powell make the case to the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq. Most of the intelligence community at the time knew the case for war was totally bogus. And I remember my colleagues and I looking at each other asking, "What WMDs are these people talking about??" It was obvious there was a hidden agenda very high up in the administration. Ten years later, the body count from the conflict exceeds 100,000 military and civilian casualties. Yet Iraq is a 'free country'. And China is reaping the benefits, buying nearly half the oil that Iraq produces at nearly 1.5 million barrels per day. Mission Accomplished. Now Barack Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate wants to bring the same freedom to Syria. Nevermind that there are dozens of places in the world where genocidal dictators are exterminating their own citizens. And nevermind that Mr. Obama and his team are working tirelessly to dismantle every vestige of personal and economic liberty in the Land of the Free. No, the community organizer-in-chief is bringing his extensive military experience and liberty street cred to bear on Syria, just to prove that he's a man of his word. It's like some idiot teenager who just got double-dog-dared into jumping off a bridge. So now Mr. Obama is going to war. But only 'sort of'. He'll drop bombs and lob missiles. But no bullets. He'll use drones and 'surgical' air strikes (because those never hit schools and hospitals). But no ground troops. And of course, he has to invade Cyprus first (the staging ground for the air strikes) in order to NOT invade Syria. C5 But don't pay attention to those details. MiniTruth just wants you to unquestioningly believe their 1984 DoubleThink logic. That's why wars these days are no longer commanded by generals. Or even politicians. These days it's all poll-tested taglines. Think tank-approved strategies. Steering committees and focus groups to set policy. It's a clever marketing con job to ensure that people remain emotionally engaged in the war, but scared enough for their anger to be placated, and distracted enough to not notice the steady advance of the police state back home... or the rapid unraveling of the global financial system. | ||
| Oldog |
Has any one stepped back and considered? a. what is the harm of russia having a deep water port in the med? b. what happens when russia and or china prop up the mad dog that is runnung that cespool? is it not now their problem? c. iran wants a war with whom? the us, Israel? ( they may want to re-consider, its rumored that Israel is nuclear armed ) and We are. Russia has had problems in the past with Islamic radicals, [their name escapes me] Do they want to deal with it now.? If china is backing iran I (perhaps incorrectly) presume that at some point it will bite them? IMO While we find the mass murder of civilians by any means appalling. IMO It is not in our best interests at this time to be involved, I count on ba to make this just another big ass mess, he will make the wrong decision, for the wrong reason, this I am sure of. sadly innocents will die, and perhaps this will trigger a wider conflict. consider the implications of my last.... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
they have been gassing and cheming each other for decades - and it RARELY makes the news. Before Saddam went into Kuwait, he did a round of gassing up north; a very nice rope a dope, made everyone look north.... PS, I remember only ONE source that reported that gassing; and it wasn't an American one. People get murdered in ever increasing number all the time, and it only seems to matter when the media gets a spin and spool it up; this international action will be used as a means for further domestic clandestine activity and increased confiscation of small arms from legally registered owners..... and maybe a bit of the UN on ground because 'our' troops are committed overseas..... and it is right on time. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Yea but if you drop bombs we can hear the explosion and run towards safety.. or at least away from the explosions, same with the gunman running thru town... you can run from the source of terror but with chemical weapons you can't see the toxic gas being pushed by the wind. (Unless it is visible or has a smell but then it be too late???) I don't know..., seems like the use of chemical weapons is a cowardly way to eliminate your foe/cause terror and a horrible way to die. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria -crisis-chemical-idUSBRE97R0GJ20130828?feedType=RS S | ||
| Oldog |
Interesting Read Mis marked for sensationalism To get side ways with the Russians or the Chinese over Syria, is STUPID but it seems what barry does best. http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/syria-russi a-intervention-catastrophic/2013/08/28/id/522579?s =al&promo_code=14AC8-1 | ||
| Hootowl |
"(Reuters) - Syria, defeated by Israel in three wars and afraid its arch enemy had gained a nuclear arsenal" What was the logic there? We've invaded our neighbor three times, lost, and now our enemy has a weapon that can destroy us if we try for a fourth. We'd better start stockpiling chemical weapons to counter them. Who is the bad guy again? | ||
| Aesquire |
Wow. I've found the perfect code phrase to get me to drop everything except a living human baby and run as fast as I can. "Monatomic Chlorine". Chlorine gas is itself a chemical weapon of devastating effect, used in WW1. Monatomic Chlorine will combine with stuff so voraciously that the small amount of "regular" gaseous Chlorine released will be a breath of fresh air compared to the other byproducts. A human sprayed with the monatomic form would explode, corrode, burn, and splatter poisonous, corrosive fluids like a critter from the "Alien" movies. It has a good shot at "neutralizing" VX. The immediate area won't be friendly to life for a while, after the fires go out. MacBuell's disgust at the hypocrisy of the differentiation between simply slaughtering people and gassing them is understandable, but I think he misses the point. It's not that this administration makes such a distinction, it's that this administration has been dissed. There IS a fundamental difference between WMD's and "conventional" weapons. The US for half a century made the distinction clear. WMD's ( Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons ) are indiscriminate in their effects, and have far reaching consequences for the planet not seen with TNT or Napalm. A gas is a germ is a nuke. Until Obama, that was US policy. Since we ( the US ) don't have germs, ( Russia does ) and the only reason we still have any stockpiles of poison gas is the Greenies protested them being incinerated ( yes, I have contempt for greenies ) US policy Side rant. The current fad of accusing people like the Boston Marathon terrorists of using "wmd's" is utterly bogus. They used bombs & guns. That's illegal anyway. Even Tim McVey's use of a truck bomb in Oklahoma City was NOT a wmd attack. This idiocy dilutes and ruins the distinction between real and imagined evil. Like accusing your enemy of being a Nazi, it diminishes the true horror of the Nazi's crimes against humanity. Bite me. End rant. I tend to agree with the WSJ's Brett Stevens in many ways. Don't have a war without planning to win it. Doing otherwise is a war crime, as it murders people for no good reason. Deposing the bad guys, and being prepared to do it again is smart, and moral. I'm just not sure that is the right thing to do in Syria, today. A year ago maybe. | ||
| Blake |
Matt, What we need to be asking is where these 'weapons' came from initially? Are we to believe that the Assad regime built their own chemical weapons, or did he buy/aquire them from one of the arms supplying superpowers just like Saddam Hussein did? So we ought to ignore a mass murderer and focus on the weapons manufacturer? Why not tackle both problems. USA, UK, Russia, China and France have ALL built (and probably sold/supplied) chemical and biological weapons over the past 60 years and would certainly use them if they had to, so assuming the moral high ground isn't exactly correct or convincing in my view. Why stop at 60 years? Why not hold ourselves entirely impotent to oppose any threat, evil, or mass murder on account of past transgressions? if this is some home made Sarin style toxin then that could be another matter and bombing by us would just be a protest rather than achieveing anything at all. All it will do is feed the anti west AQ propaganda that we are yet again targetting muslims, and we all know where that will lead. So using that brand of logic, if someone perpetrates mass-murders but didn't create the murder weapon, then the mass-murderer ought be excused. The real guilty party is the weapons producer. That's what's really important? The truth is that we do hold the moral high ground, on account of we don't use banned chemical weapons, nor do we provide them to anyone. Let China have Iran, NATO gets the entire Arab peninsula and Iraq. Russia gets Afghanistan and Syria. Japan gets Indonesia. India takes Pakistan and N. Africa. Islamism ends. New world order indeed. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I feel like I am in a bad movie and seat belted in.... and it is worse than Miley Cyrus and her twerking..... we go to war with Syria - we have to we get a clamp down domestically - again - we have to and the UN / Nato / Foreign troops are 'deployed' domestically - yep - see above and the dollar is dead 16-7 .... and Barry meets the way of the Czar..... f'kn history : g'damnit quit repeating it start learning the tune to the 'international' they are already too glory glad handing themselves with it in the capital. f'kn morons. | ||
| Aesquire |
But City, isn't that the New Normal?  While Trojan may be wrong as to the US supplying Chemical weapons to Syria, Western Countries have greatly contributed to the problem. German & French companies make some nice money building bunkers and chemical plants. In this case I think Trojan might be wrong on the reasons for his opinion, but be right on his opinion as to the proper course of action. Syria has both a domestic and imported Chemical weapon making capacity. Known fact. Syria got a big bunch of poison gas shells and precursor chemicals from Iraq just before we freed them. We've known this since before we liberated Iraq. The problem is that the players on both sides are bad guys. The original idealist college kids seem to be mostly dead now, and no longer in any power. That leaves the jihadi as the rebels, and I don't want them to take power. I don't like Assad, either. If I was in charge I'd favor taking out Assad, but only if I then could take out the seemingly inevitable evil successor. Repeat as needed. I don't think we have the stomach for Empire, nor is our system set up for it. I also don't see a leader that could push that technique long enough to see if it works. I'm not sure there is a proper choice..... and I'm doubtful that any decisions made by the powers that be will make me happy. There's not a lot of win in any direction. | ||
| Sifo |
Looks like the UK is backing off on the war drums, at least for the moment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea st/syria/10272555/Cameron-backs-down-on-urgent-Syr ia-strikes.html Does BO attack alone? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
he's an idiot that needs a distraction. yes - he does attack..... and we get ourselves entrenched in a 'little' war; cue up the false flag attack on one of our ships, either proper navy, or one of the 'grey' NSA boats in the region. a la Lusitania, Pueblo, Turner Joy, 'Independence' yep - all been friggen done before too many boats on top of each other .... somebody is gonna pull the trigger on the 'wrong' boat | ||
| Gaesati |
How does one eliminate the danger of terrorists beginning to use WMDs against the US? The prospect of the Syrian incident happening in the heart of a US city is too awful to contemplate. | ||
| Gaesati |
The Israeli approach seems to be that if there is even the prospect of it happening to Israel that they will retaliate in spades. | ||
| Sifo |
Actually Israel has been dealing with actual attacks for many decades. They have, often times, not retaliated for actual attacks. Personally, I would call their responses fairly restrained. Back to the heart of the topic, I think BO just blinked. That may actually be the best thing, but it is showing him to be a very poor leader. Not much better than pajama boy in North Korea. | ||
| Sifo |
So while I agree that chemical weapons tend to be among the most horrible ways to kill people indiscriminately, I'm kind of hung up on the whole idea of "international law", "international conventions", or what ever double good phrase they choose to describe it. The bottom line is that not all nations have agreed to abide by these ideals. What gives one nation the right to enforce it's view of what is right on another nation, when that nation is not doing anything objectionable outside of it's own borders. This is the classic "stay out of my bedroom" argument being played out on a global scale. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
I heard the President state that he would do decisive action without purpose.... Or something like that.... I'm confused. Let's try a direct quote without my spin. “If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘Stop doing this,’ this can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” Obama told PBS’s News Hour Wednesday. Exsqueeze me? Ok, I have to up front admit I think this guy's foreign policy comes out of someone else's head, since the above statement is contradictory. Still, even though I'm prejudiced against this guy, ( based on Religion, and actions ) I fail to see anything but Butt covering. Is this where we kill people for polls? Oh, heck, just pull up a stack of "news" opinions on the Iraq Liberation and apply them here. The difference is Bush went to Congress, the UN, and had established facts. All of that seems lacking here. I'm willing to believe that people are dead from poison gas. ( been alleged for months ) It's highly probable that Assad ordered the strikes, but it's also highly probable that the local jihadi did. It actually makes a lot more sense for the Jihadi to use poison gas than Assad. They don't have a known palace, they weren't "warned" by Obama, and at least some are actual bloodthirsty cannibals. ( a great propaganda ploy, btw, though it's lost on most westerners, it's effective in cultural context. ) If I was taking book, I'd put the odds on the rebels being responsible. But not really really long odds. Take the following as rumor. ( also take anything Kerry says as rumor ) http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-laun ching-gas-attack-in-syria/ So while I am normally in favor of actual decisive action, not limited by idiocy, at this time I can't tell you who I'd bomb. ( The "God will know his own" line may be appropriate here, but I'm not pushing that concept, today ) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403778/Sy ria-crisis-U-S-spies-certain-Assad-used-nerve-gas- intercepting-defence-chief.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405633/Sy ria-conflict-David-Cameron-humiliated-losing-Commo ns-vote-possible-military-action.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2404983/Sy rias-nerve-gas-massacre-Revenge-tyrants-legged-bro ther-monstrous-trick-rebels.html I'd like to point out that the Palestine jihadi often use ambulance painted troop transports, and issue video and stills of "fresh Israeli atrocities" that are provable fakes. ( the same stuffed toy in multiple locations, the same actress, a "newly bombed shelter" with rusty rebar and seen in other photos as a different attack, multiple times ) They even recycle the lies knowing that no one outside Israel will call them on it. The Brits seem to have the most honest reporting here. And they don't know. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357167/shame d-war-charles-krauthammer http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356991/groun d-game-syria-editors opinions | ||
| Aesquire |
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance -901/ Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident – Russia Like I'm going to believe Putin. I mean, compare him to Obama.............. uh. Hold on. Let me think about this. | ||
| Reindog |
George Will gets this one correct:
The Perils of Loquacity | ||
| Airbozo |
Blake: "The truth is that we do hold the moral high ground, on account of we don't use banned chemical weapons, nor do we provide them to anyone. " Where do you think Saddam got his chemical weapons to use on the Iranians (and then his own people)? And why do you think we knew exactly what to look for when we invaded that country? It's because we had the invoice. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I would not rule out the CIA's involvement in this event. Past history and all... | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356945/wmd-e xcuse-again-alan-reynolds A case against bombing the Syrian government based on lack of evidence. | ||
| Hootowl |
An argument in favor of taking out Assad, similar to the one I posted earlier. If the intent is to punish and deter, NOT killing Assad will accomplish neither. If, in fact, it was the government that conducted the attack, and not a massive ploy by the rebels. Pretty sure AQ is capable of "martyring" 1500 women and children to advance their cause. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
One of the problems the Brits have is that the blithely went along with the US over Iraq & wmd's, & that's turned out so well hasn't it? Once bitten twice shy, so they now want to wait for the UN report. France (or rather Francois Hollande) is oddly all gung ho on the idea, but based on past performance I rather think it's a distraction while he slips us another nasty surprise when we're looking the other way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8 | ||
| Two_seasons |
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-o bama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.ht ml "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida". Sure would appear that this article is correct! Carry on...  (Message edited by two_seasons on August 30, 2013) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I think I'll go & get therapeutically bombed myself, got plenty of scotch in the cupboard. |
