War with Syria

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
40,449
134,311
Famm_sl said:
Yeah but what if the rogue is fully twinked out and we know they are Verant's pet class anyway and warriors have been gimped for everything but tanking for so long now, I mean its simple justice at that point.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the rogue also corpse camped the shit out of the 60 shaman for a week. The rogue is an asshole.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
I love how everything reverts to EQ references. No salmon.

We really ARE in their world, still. Bitch.
 
Neki

Neki

Molten Core Raider
2,726
397
David Cameron is debating in parliament right now to justify ordering military intervention. He needs Labour's support to make it happen but seems like there are going to be lots of hurdles to overcome to get that support.

One wonders if the US with go it ahead without UK support who had always been a main ally if no consensus is met within the British parliament.
 
R

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
Neki_sl said:
David Cameron is debating in parliament right now to justify ordering military intervention. He needs Labour's support to make it happen but seems like there are going to be lots of hurdles to overcome to get that support.

One wonders if the US with go it ahead without UK support who had always been a main ally if no consensus is met within the British parliament.
Click to expand...
I don't think either Cameron or Milliband have been very effective in the debate. Cameron was in "spoiled brat" mode for having to explain himself, while Milliband looked like a ditherer. All in all the MPs will vote on party lines, and it will come down to whether the Libs vote with Cameron (because they are allied with his party in government) or against him (because they hated the Irag invasion and they know the public are 2:1 against doing anything).

But at least we're getting some kind of debate on this.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,069
138,973
Syria resolution authorizing military force fails in U.N. Security Council

"After the council fell short of reaching an agreement, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters in Washington that the U.S. sees "no avenue forward" given Russia's past opposition to action by the council on Syria."
Click to expand...
~

"The U.S. has not presented concrete proof, and U.N. inspectors currently in Syria to investigate alleged chemical attacks have not endorsed the allegations.

The American government's assessment is based on the circumstantial evidence from videos posted on the Internet, and, as CBS News correspondent David Martin reported Tuesday, intelligence - much of it still classified - ranging from intercepted Syrian communications to tests of tissue samples taken from victims.

The U.N. envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said Wednesday that evidence suggests some kind of "substance" was used that killed hundreds on Aug. 21.

Falk reports that the five permanent members of the Security Council met in a closed-door, informal meeting to discuss the U.K. resolution Wednesday morning, with Russia and China leaving after an hour and the U.S., France and the U.K. remaining for another hour."
Click to expand...
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Grayson Carlyle_sl said:
Also everyone responding to Eomer has replied against things he didn't state at all. It's like Americans have a completely different meaning for intervention than the rest of the world. We're not talking Iraq here. Everyone except the US was initially against Iraq, now it's the opposite. The only thing Eomer, and the Canadian population in general is in support of, is to stop indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians with gas. However, like Eomer, I don't really have any idea how that should be done. Regarldless, you guys need to stop putting words into his mouth.
Click to expand...
*brofist*
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
48,036
82,968
I think we all are just frustrated with the establishment pushing for intervention and want someone to argue with. Eomer has a pretty weak standpoint of ambiguity, so it's much more fun to pretend he wants Syria to be the next Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Tuco_sl said:
I think we all are just frustrated with the establishment pushing for intervention and want someone to argue with. Eomer has a pretty weak standpoint of ambiguity, so it's much more fun to pretend he wants Syria to be the next Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and I understand that. I'm not trying to hide in the ambiguity. It's just a reality of this particular situation and geopolitics in general. Sorry I don't have any simple, concrete answers, but my general feeling is that if the Assad regime can be shown to have conclusively used chemical weapons on civilians, strong words just don't go far enough in deterring future assholes from doing it. That doesn't mean regime change, invasion, or even a no fly zone are necessary or desirable either. Really it's less about Syria in particular and more about future deterrence. And I readily admit that even a limited attack might well make the regional situation much worse. However I also think it's beyond retarded that some people think that Russia might react military to an attack. They'll protest loudly, maybe even turn off some pipelines here or there, but that'll be it. This isn't the fucking missile crisis, nor is it anywhere close to being some sort of precursor to WW3.
 
R

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
Things are starting to get really nasty as the UK parliamentary debate goes on:

"A furious row between Downing Street and the Labour leadership has erupted after No 10 accused Ed Miliband of giving "succour" to the Assad regime after he moved to block an early Commons vote on military action.

...Asked whether Miliband was giving succour to the Assad regime, another Downing Street spokesperson said: "Yes. The fact is that a lot of the arguments over this could give succour to the regime." Labour immediately hit back. A spokesman said: "That is frankly insulting. Language like that demeans Downing Street."

Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband. A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-succour-assad
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
29,907
83,364
AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-29-03-11-56

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.
Click to expand...
Maybe Kerry doesn't know what undeniable means?
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I just don't get how anyone could have been against the Iraq war and be for this with a straight face. The evidence for Iraq was considerably stronger than the case for Syria. We were facing a government that was far more openly hostile towards the US than Syria is, we knew Iraq had used gas against its own civilians and other countries in the past and we had higher hopes in the Iraq case of an opposition that wasn't virulently anti-american.

Yet after years of almost universal acknowledgement on the part of many that the Iraq war was a bad idea, many of these same people are all over the Syrian intervention. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
48,036
82,968
Eomer_sl said:
Fair enough, and I understand that. I'm not trying to hide in the ambiguity. It's just a reality of this particular situation and geopolitics in general. Sorry I don't have any simple, concrete answers, but my general feeling is that if the Assad regime can be shown to have conclusively used chemical weapons on civilians, strong words just don't go far enough in deterring future assholes from doing it. That doesn't mean regime change, invasion, or even a no fly zone are necessary or desirable either. Really it's less about Syria in particular and more about future deterrence. And I readily admit that even a limited attack might well make the regional situation much worse. However I also think it's beyond retarded that some people think that Russia might react military to an attack. They'll protest loudly, maybe even turn off some pipelines here or there, but that'll be it. This isn't the fucking missile crisis, nor is it anywhere close to being some sort of precursor to WW3.
Click to expand...
I do agree that people comparing this to the Cuban missile crisis are overreaching.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,069
138,973
Grayson Carlyle_sl said:
The only thing Eomer, and the Canadian population in general is in support of, is to stop indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians with gas.
Click to expand...
This is a legacy argument based on the stupid, weapons of mass destruction paranoia campaign that exactly mirrors the Iraq lead up to war for 2 big reasons.

reason 1.) 93,000 people died to conventional weapons but ~500-3,000 total people in all the gas attacks combined dead, yeah they are really WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

reason 2.) Intervention will cost more lives than it saves, how can you claim moral authority when you will cause more damage than you pretend to save?
-----

Do Military Interventions Reduce Killings of Civilians in Civil Wars? conclusion: most likely no


Armed intervention and civilian victimization in intrastate conflicts
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
29,907
83,364
The drum beat for Iraq at least made sense at the time. We had been attacked, Iraq was a terrorist state, we cannot allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, ties to 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, etc etc etc. The media was pushing it pretty hard and there was a coherent narrative. Our intel turned out to be a mixture of lies and fabrications and it ended up being a gigantic clusterfuck and it was really all about Bush Jr's daddy issues but at the time the progression was logical.

This shit in Syria is being marketed a zillion times worse. We weren't attacked, there isn't any concern about an imminent threat to the United States, it's a civil war and our involvement is going to require the direct or indirect aiding of Al-Qaeda allied forces, and the region really is chained together in a fashion not entirely dissimilar to pre-WW1 Europe. I don't see any short term gains. The long term gains are an oil pipeline for European interests, weakening an enemy of Israel, and weakening Iran for a possible future conflict. Obama is doing a right shitty job of selling this war. I need to hear more than this is about helping people.

Sell me on this. Make me believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.