Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[PatriotSaint]

So, which golf course do you guys think Obama will be at by the next administrative failure and/or Biden gaffe and/or "Homeland" marathon? (which takes precedence over work, obviously)

[SalmonGod]

Ah, I remember the days when every other car had a Blame Bush bumper sticker.

Admittedly, I only remember people blaming things he was actually responsible for on him (like the war in Iraq). I suppose its certainly possible people were blaming him for lots of random stuff though! People can be pretty stupid.

Same here.  There were enough things to legitimately blame Bush for that nobody had to be ridiculous about it.  It was just too easy.

Same could be said for Obama, yet the majority of his detractors fail to pick up on the legitimate complaints that can be weighed against him, and instead choose to blow lots of hot air that has nothing to do with him.  As someone who very much dislikes Obama as president, it's frustrating as hell.

[Solifuge]

So... the Syria thing. Anyone have thoughts or information to share?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html

A U.S. intelligence report assessed with "high confidence" that Syria's government planned and launched last week's chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people, Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday in releasing details intended to muster support at home and abroad for a military response.

Citing evidence including video footage of children and other victims lying dead with no visible wounds, Kerry said such "indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons" is what Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "did to his own people."

Kerry's statement and the release of the declassified intelligence report came as President Barack Obama's administration faced rising resistance to a military strike against the Syrian regime in response to its use of banned chemical weapons.

Britain's Parliament voted against joining a coalition sought by Obama to respond militarily, denying the president a key NATO ally that has steadfastly supported previous campaigns.

Other European allies support action against Syria but want the United Nations to lead the effort, something Kerry said would not happen because of opposition by permanent Security Council member Russia, a Syrian ally.

At home, questions about the veracity of the U.S. intelligence and whether Washington is headed for another war based on false information -- like happened in Iraq -- have emerged from both parties in Congress.

"Let's invade a country and kill tens of hundreds of their people, because they used Banned Chemical Weapons to kill tens of hundreds of their own people." Am I understanding this correctly?

I never know what to feel about Humanitarian Wars. I'd rather we at least came to an agreement with Russia/China/Iran and had a UN Force move in, rather than gallivanting off on another hasty Middle East invasion, without letting another set of inspectors go through. Mostly, I don't want a Proxy War with China/Russia/Iran supplying Syria, to protect their ally in the region from us. And I certainly don't want to escalate to an open conflict with any of the above.

I think the US Government is desperate to look strong right now... and some elements in the leadership think military action in response to a "Humanitarian Crisis" is the way to do that. Rather than, you know, addressing the systemic collapse of our financial institution, adapting for the paradigm shift in the way we do business as we move away from brick-and-mortar stores for a large percentage of our commodities, adjusting government spending to prevent trillions of dollars being sunk into Weapons Manufacturers instead of constructive social programs, correcting the economic stagnation induced by taxation policies, overzealous copyright laws, and so on which encourage wealth-pooling in the hands of the few, and generally discouraging education, creation, research, and discovery. And of course, coming to terms with the fact that the gap in relative wealth/power between the 1st and 3rd world is beginning to close due to systemic and technological changes making some aspects of infrastructure (like communication, access to information, etc.) available to people in any part of the world that can get a Satellite Signal.

Guys, I don't want to be the country that invades other countries all the time, just to prove we're strong and right. Can we not be that country?

[misko27]

Guys, I don't want to be the country that invades other countries all the time, just to prove we're strong and right. Can we not be that country?

Well then who would do that? And I guess the whole humanitarian thing too. It used to be the USSR. But they kept losing. That's why we're using missiles this time. No invasions. Just missiles. Missiles don't lose.


I suddenly remember one of the options Kennedy had during the Cuban Missile Crisis was launch a precision strike of golf-balls, to destroy their facilities.

[Solifuge]

To be fair, the Syria thing is... pretty complicated. We're in a very bad position, where we can either ignore a human rights violation (see government-sanctioned slaughter of humans), take diplomatic actions that may not adequately prevent another similar event from happening, or take military action and risk unrest domestically, and creating new enemies abroad.

I don't see a way to win here.

[10ebbor10]

Nobody's going to invade. Worst that's going to happen is taking some potshots at Syrian targets from the medditerean. Maybe a no flyy zone, but that would be incredibly costly.

[Solifuge]

Well, last word I got from a Navy friend of mine was that he was being rapidly mobilized and shipped out for the 5th Fleet a few weeks back. They're the fleet stationed in the Arabian Sea, and would be the first to respond should something go down in Syria.

It's a very timely mobilization.

[GlyphGryph]

So basically we're going to risk escalation for a symbolic gesture that  accomplishes nothing of actual value.

[10ebbor10]

There've been some strategic bombing campaigns that were successful. This one won't. There's no goal in it, no destination. We're punishing the government for the poison attack, not attempting to resolve the situation.

[Scoops Novel]

There've been some strategic bombing campaigns that were successful. This one won't. There's no goal in it, no destination. We're punishing the government for the poison attack, not attempting to resolve the situation.

How important do you consider the chemical weapons to be here?

[10ebbor10]

There've been some strategic bombing campaigns that were successful. This one won't. There's no goal in it, no destination. We're punishing the government for the poison attack, not attempting to resolve the situation.

How important do you consider the chemical weapons to be here?

Minimal. It's the red line that nobody expected to be crossed. It's a threat nobody wanted to carry out.

[GlyphGryph]

And here's the thing I'm really worried about - what do we do if we launch a few cruise missiles, call it a day - and he uses them again?

[Descan]

Yeah, that's what bothers me.

Does Assad just... not listen to the news? The whole "Red-line" thing was touted for months, and then he just... Crosses it. Like he's trying to provoke external threats, in the middle of a civil war, but not in a way that would unify his country so much as lend support to the rebels.

I mean, he's insane, but sane enough to hold on to power. You'd think "not poking the sleeping giant just to kill people a little faster" would be high on his priorities, eh?

[10ebbor10]

I'm not sure Assad used those gas weapons. Governement troops might have done it, but probably without orders from above.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think Assad is insane. He's just amoral and power-mad.