War with Syria

Karloff_sl said:

Which republicans? The ones wanting us to continue what the NSA is doing and going to strike Syria or the one who don't. I don't think they even know. Talk of impeachment is always a way to rile up your base and keep hem thinking you actually care.

Click to expand...

No doubt. The point is that they will do it if they can get away with it. As the shit piles on, it becomes more likely that they can get away with it and the talk of impeachment becomes less and less fringe.

Tuco_sl said:

Good article.

The thing that I always had trouble understanding was how the shit we pull in the middle east helped us get cheaper oil. We spent so much lives and money and political capital on Iraq but I never saw the benefit.

Click to expand...

Uh, I doubt anyone in power wants cheap oil. Sorry, but our politicians are owned by business interests. The oil companies profit by having control over the oil, not getting it cheaper for us peons. We paid for it with taxes and lives and the corporations didn't have to do shit. Really, we fucked around for a decade bankrupting the country so a few people could get richer.

If we go into Syria, it's got dick to do with lives. We'll go to help corporations (defense and oil) line their pockets even more at the expensive of the rest of the world.

Elurin_sl said:

Uh, I doubt anyone in power wants cheap oil. Sorry, but our politicians are owned by business interests. The oil companies profit by having control over the oil, not getting it cheaper for us peons. We paid for it with taxes and lives and the corporations didn't have to do shit. Really, we fucked around for a decade bankrupting the country so a few people could get richer.

If we go into Syria, it's got dick to do with lives. We'll go to help corporations (defense and oil) line their pockets even more at the expensive of the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

Well when you play command and conquer its not like you're actually the one dying, you just make your units and expend as necessary. I don't recall giving a shit, until Generals came out with ranks, if I lost one of my badass full ranked snipers, yeah I may have thought about what it would be like to shed a tear about it.

BrutulTM_sl said:

According to the constitution, the president *should* be impeached if he takes the country to war without a declaration of war by congress. However, since the US hasn't actually declared war since WWII it would be pretty tough to make a case for that without also condemning half the US presidents in the last 80 years. Even the half-assed congressional bills that the Bushes went through aren't really the way it's supposed to go. Obama would just be taking it one small step beyond what presidents have been doing as standard procedure for generations. I would actually like to see a president impeached for that, but I don't see it happening because congress would rather not take the heat for declaring war so they allow the president to take their power/responsibility.

Click to expand...

Obama hasn't done anything or hinted that he will do anything beyond the same police action bullshit that every administration has done since... I don't even know. The 1800s sometime? Even that is in doubt. I think everyone is really getting ahead of themselves on this one. Granted, we have good reason given what happened with Iraq.

As far as the Republicans condemning past president by impeaching Obama, I doubt they would even really consider that. They'd just deny it and say some bullshit. There's no real oversight to make sure they are righteous when they impeach, they just do it and it goes to the Senate.

chaos_sl said:

Obama hasn't done anything or hinted that he will do anything beyond the same police action bullshit that every administration has done since... I don't even know. The 1800s sometime? Even that is in doubt. I think everyone is really getting ahead of themselves on this one. Granted, we have good reason given what happened with Iraq.

As far as the Republicans condemning past president by impeaching Obama, I doubt they would even really consider that. They'd just deny it and say some bullshit. There's no real oversight to make sure they are righteous when they impeach, they just do it and it goes to the Senate.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Obama impeachment talk is just varous R's talking out of their ass, anyone compare who's saying what to whether or not they're running for re-election next year?

As for Obama not having done anything yet - you underestimate the man. He's been hot to trot since killing Osama shot his approval ratings up 20%. Who do you think approved the initial gun running to the rebels?

The biggest problem is - and this is true of most Presidents not just Obama (see for example Bush II & Saddam)- that Presidential ego. Once Obama goes in with cruise missles, it's going to look bad if he is unable to remove Assad. So if Obama goes in it's going to end up being a lot more than just a few missle strikes.

Credit where credit is due, Bill Clinton seems to have been the only President since Carter who really didn't give a shit about whether or not "He looked bad foreign affairs wise" so he had no problem withdrawing (Somalia) or launching a few cruise missles and then moving on.

Araysar_sl said:

Eomer and merlin together on one side

Fitting really

Click to expand...

That hurts bro.

Arbitrary_sl said:

So what kind of forces can we expect Canada to put forth for this particular police action?

Click to expand...

First of all, what does that have to do with whether action is warranted or not?

Second of all, outside of the US and Britain, no other country gave more of it's lives for the effort in Afghanistan. Fuck you cunt.

Arbitrary_sl said:

And fuck you for dismissing the skepticism that people have as "conspiracy theory bullshit. No really. Fuck. You. I don't know if you remember when Colin Powell testified before Congress about how the United States had direct intel about Iraq's WMD programs but I do. That just fucking happened a few years ago. The "intel" ended up being one liar and one guy we tortured the everliving shit out of. I'm glad there are a whole bunch of people who aren't automatically hoping on board with this. Getting involved in a civil war in Syria is a big fucking deal. It should have the involvement of Congress.

Click to expand...

I do remember, just fine. The differences are like night and day. Everyone knew Syria had chemical weapons for decades. No one tried to use that as a pretext to attack them after the uprising began. However the world did wag it's finger and say to Assad "don't touch that shit man, if you do, there's going to be consequences." Now that there has finally been a widespread use of them after several smaller, rumored ones, we're seeing many people/countries openly question whether or not it was even done by the regime, or if it was done by Al Qaeda or god knows who else. Obama is if anything well behind Hollande and Cameron on this, much like in Libya. He's treading carefully, like he should.

Yes, I too am glad that questions are being asked about who actually used them. Those are legitimate questions to be asked. I just think it's fucking ridiculous to say that Obama or anyone else has been biding their time, patiently waiting for this shit to happen to provide an excuse to invade or start the bombing. He quite obviously doesn't want a fucking thing to do with Syria, any more than he did continuing fucking around in Iraq or Afghanistan. But unfortunately circumstances are dictating that something has to be done. What's the point of drawing a line in the sand, one that only Saddam Fucking Hussein himself has crossed, if there's no consequences to follow?

Again, this is all predicated on there being some actual decent proof that it was the regime that did it, and not the rebels. For all I know, that may prove to be impossible. In which case, then I honestly don't know where to go from there.

Elurin_sl said:

Why does it have to be the west that responds?

Click to expand...

Because no one else will, and it was the West that drew the line in the sand in the first place. If we want to send a message to every asshole dictator that there will be no consequences for using WMD on their own civilians, by all means, let's just let Assad skate here (if indeed the regime is responsible).

Chaos_sl said:

There is a difference between demanding more evidence before jumping on board and just going along with whatever crackpot theory people come up with. Sure, Assad could have done it, or the rebels, or the CIA or my mom. I am hoping that we will see more before any action is taken. Skepticism is fine, but some of the shit people are coming up with is eye-rollingly bad. Too much 24 bad.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I am getting at.

Beef Supreme_sl said:

Imagine how much oil from the ME would cost if it came from true democratic countries, with strong middle classes...

Click to expand...

Last I checked, oil from Alberta, Mexico, Britain, Norway and so on isn't any more expensive than Middle Eastern oil, to any significant degree anyways. You could well argue that overall oil prices would decline if democratic, market-based societies controlled most of the world's oil, because they'd likely be producing more. Shitholes like Venezuela, Iran, and others are actually seeing declining oil production not because of a lack of reserves, but because their economies and oil industries are such mismanaged fucking disasters.

Tuco_sl said:

Yeah I don't get this bullshit about Pres. Obama being powerless to stop war with Syria. I cut the potus a lot of slack for not being able to control the legislative branch but what we do with Syria is entirely up to him.

Click to expand...

Who is saying he's powerless? What I'm saying is that if it's proven that Assad gassed his own people, that the world at large should not stand idly by. And unfortunately, "the world" largely means the US when it comes to this sort of shit. Again, not responding sets an ugly precedent for the future. It's certainly his choice to not respond militarily, and he might well make that choice. But I don't know if history will be kind to him if that's what happens. Then again, if it turns out that it WAS the rebels after he dumps a few tomahawks in to Damascus, history won't be kind either. Obama's facing a situation with virtually no upside, and unknowable downsides. But that's his problem, he wanted the job.

Boehner writes letter to Obama. Wants answers to 14 questions before he decides if Congress needs to give him authority to strike

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release...nt-obama-syria

Eomer_sl said:

Because no one else will, and it was the West that drew the line in the sand in the first place. If we want to send a message to every asshole dictator that there will be no consequences for using WMD on their own civilians, by all means, let's just let Assad skate here (if indeed the regime is responsible).

Click to expand...

So basically you're in favor of policing the world? Got it. We just disagree on that one then. If someone wants to kill all their people, I could give a shit. Their neighboring countries should be the ones responding to that.

Elurin_sl said:

Their neighboring countries should be the ones responding to that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like Israel!

Elurin_sl said:

So basically you're in favor of policing the world? Got it. We just disagree on that one then. If someone wants to kill all their people, I could give a shit. Their neighboring countries should be the ones responding to that.

Click to expand...

Strawman. No, I'm not advocating "policing the world" in any and all situations where a government is attacking it's own citizens. However in the case of using WMD on it's own citizens, yes, I do think that some sort of a response is required.

Eomer_sl said:

Last I checked, oil from Alberta, Mexico, Britain, Norway and so on isn't any more expensive than Middle Eastern oil, to any significant degree anyways. You could well argue that overall oil prices would decline if democratic, market-based societies controlled most of the world's oil, because they'd likely be producing more. Shitholes like Venezuela, Iran, and others are actually seeing declining oil production not because of a lack of reserves, but because their economies and oil industries are such mismanaged fucking disasters.

Click to expand...

You're thinking about it reverse. Had we not intervened in the ME since the end of WW2, the price of oil would be radically different.

From the US's perspective, it's much easier to deal with a single despotic ruler who has his thumb on the masses, that way, they don't care about the shit deal they are getting for their oil, nor how their shit government spends that money.

What's the difference between using a WMD and killing 1,000 people individually?

I don't see all WMDs specifically as such a big deal. I mean, yeah... if someone is going to kill me then I guess I'd prefer a bullet to the head over sarin gas but I think it is an odd distinction regardless. It's horrible but so are many things we let slide.

Obviously nuking somewhere or using biological agents that remain active (viral/pathogen stuff) is a totally different thing because they have widespread effects but while gassing people is reprehensible, it really isn't all that different than landmines, cluster bombs and white phosphorous. Hell, different but notreallyall that different than boots with AK-74s.

Araysar_sl said:

Russia and China have walked out of the UN Security Council meeting
http://investmentwatchblog.com/break...-syria-its-on/

Click to expand...

It's too bad that after Korea they always leave an alternate behind.....Can't fake them out with procedure anymore .

Edit: Heh, did Merlin start the whole, we should save lives thing? Man, that ship sailed with Somalia. We will never send anyone anywhere without being able to sell the power brokers, either here or our allies, some possible tangible benefits.