QuoteU.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
Congressional sources told CNN that investigators concluded that Syria has used chemical weapons multiple times.
In a statement released on Thursday, the White House says U.S. intelligence concluded that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent Sarin, against rebel fighters in the last year.
The statement continues:
Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.
The White House reiterates that President Obama has designated the use of chemical weapons as a red line and that the U.S. will increase its assistance to the opposition.
"Our intelligence community now has a high confidence assessment that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale by the Assad regime in Syria. The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has," the statement says.
National Security Council deputy advisor Ben Rhodes said on Thursday that the President Obama reached a decision on what the new support for the Syrian opposition would look like. According to Buzzfeed, Rhodes said: "The president has made a decision "about what kind of additional support will be provided to the rebels. It will be "direct support to the SMC [Supreme Military Command] that includes military support." Rhodes added that no decision has been made on the institution of a no-fly zone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... d=webmail1 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/syria-chemical-weapons-assad_n_3437640.html?ncid=webmail1)
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — The United States has conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against opposition forces seeking to overthrow the government, crossing what President Barack Obama has called a "red line" that would trigger greater American involvement in the crisis, the White House said Thursday.
Officials said Obama was considering both political and military options, but it was unclear how quickly new actions would be taken and what they would involve.
"We've prepared for many contingencies in Syria," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser. "We are going to make decisions on further actions on our own timeline."
The White House said the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale multiple times in the last year. Up to 150 people have been killed in those attacks, the White House said, constituting a small percentage of the 93,000 people killed in Syria over the last two years.
The Obama administration announced in April that it had "varying degrees of confidence" that sarin had been used in Syria. But they said at the time that they had not been able to determine who was responsible for deploying the gas.
The more conclusive findings announced Thursday were aided by evidence sent to the United States by France, which along with Britain, announced it had determined that Assad's government had used chemical weapons in the two-year conflict.
Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for U.S. policy on Syria, which until now has focused entirely on providing the opposition with nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.
The White House said Congress has been notified of the new U.S. chemical weapons determination, as have international allies. Obama will discuss the assessments, along with broader problems in Syria, next week during the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.
Obama is also expected to press Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad's most powerful backers, to drop his political and military support for the Syrian government.
"We believe that Russia and all members of the international community should be concerned about the use of chemical weapons," Rhodes said.
Not sure what involvement just yet. *shakes head* Have we not yet learned our lesson to stay out of other country's business? Will the American public support this?
another article
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13356 ... -look-like (http://www.policymic.com/articles/13356/syria-civil-war-what-the-us-invasion-of-syria-would-look-like)
US Military learn lessons about fucking around in other nations? Certainly you jest. :shock:
I honestly don't see an easy answer in this one. Doing nothing assures Assad victory, but a widening conflict with no end in sight, but involving our military directly is an even worse option possibly bringing is into direct confrontation with Russia, Iran, maybe China, dragging Israel into it and on and on. Doing nothing isn't an option, but neither is involvement. We could just say "Either knock it off motherfuckers or we'll nuke the whole lot of you and let Africa, Europe and Asia fight over the leftovers, but I'm fairly sure that's a really unpopular choice especially to certain forum members living within nuclear bomb distance. :-$
One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.
Policy makers here would like nothing better than theocracy.. It makes their populations much easier to control. It's those pesky people who think they deserve basic human rights that muck up the works for policy makers..
If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.
Whether it's in our best interests to get involved aside, I'm skeptical about this. I don't trust my government to do what's right. Government is just a bunch of politicians who rose to the top of the swamp due to their popularity, but not with any particular knowledge about world affairs. We voters are manipulated into supporting these military incursions through a diet of carefully selected information released through the media. 150 killed by chemical weapons among thousands killed by conventional means? It almost seems like a technicality, doesn't it?
Tens of thousands killed by conventional weapons? Not a problem. Let them work it out on their own. But 150 killed by chemicals, and we must enter the fray. I suspect Obama has been waiting for something to use as an excuse. This may not be the excuse that causes us to invade, but it does show that the government has a clear preference for the rebels, and this news item will be added to the list of reasons in voter's minds why we need to get further involved.
But are the rebels the right ones to lead Syria towards a peaceful government that relates to the rest of the world? Should I just assume that the government has our best interests at heart, or are they being lobbied by the arms manufacturers because it's good for business? I don't know the answer, but the one thing I do believe is that our government knows what it's doing less than half the time. It's just a bunch of guys reacting to their own personal needs.
Quote from: "stromboli"If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.
Then you'll be signing impeachment petitions for the forseeable future and beyond because we'll keep electing presidents sharing the same views. Congresses will authorize it all and nobody bent on stopping it will ever be able to financially overcome the defense industry lobby in Washington..
Quote from: "stromboli"If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.
Then again, who will replace Obama? I would think the impeachment of Obama would swing the public opinion towards the Republitards...
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "stromboli"If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.
Then you'll be signing impeachment petitions for the forseeable future and beyond because we'll keep electing presidents sharing the same views. Congresses will authorize it all and nobody bent on stopping it will ever be able to financially overcome the defense industry lobby in Washington..
Unfortunately you are right. Sad.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "stromboli"If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.
Then you'll be signing impeachment petitions for the forseeable future and beyond because we'll keep electing presidents sharing the same views. Congresses will authorize it all and nobody bent on stopping it will ever be able to financially overcome the defense industry lobby in Washington..
Unfortunately you are right. Sad.
Don't forget, everlasting war means JOBS JOBS JOBS! Until those jobs are all done either in China or behind prison walls by inmate labor @ $0.25 per hour..
To quote the bowl of petunias, "Oh no, not again."
If Assad falls, the Christians and the Alawites in Syria will be massacred.
One step closer to the Islamic Caliphate.
As for Muslims fight each other, well, let them. They been doing that ever since Muhammad turned up his sandals.
Im not looking to get into yet another war either. The rebels come from a wide range of ideologies: Getting rid of Assad would only be the beginning of a new conflict with unpredictable results. Even scarier though, I don't see how Obama can avoid intervention and save face given his earlier comments about drawing a line re: chemical weapons.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Im not looking to get into yet another war either. The rebels come from a wide range of ideologies: Getting rid of Assad would only be the beginning of a new conflict with unpredictable results. Even scarier though, I don't see how Obama can avoid intervention and save face given his earlier comments about drawing a line re: chemical weapons.
It is Obama's problem, and that's too bad. It's one of those cases where he must weigh his political standing against the good of the country, and what's good for one may not be good for the other.
He made a promise. He will take a hit if he doesn't live up to it, but his detractors won't care about what happens to the country as much as they will relish using the situation against him. And if we get embroiled in another war, they will love beating up on that even more.
Compare that to George Bush, who stood by the Iraq invasion even when it turned out to be an ugly waste of time and money. No one can accuse him of being a flip-flopper.
Quote from: "DunkleSeele"One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.
The Syrian government is waging chemical warfare on its own citizens. There isnt much that is worse than a Sharia government but certainly this is one of them.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "DunkleSeele"One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.
The Syrian government is waging chemical warfare on its own citizens. There isnt much that is worse than a Sharia government but certainly this is one of them.
And what will happen if those chemical weapons will fall in the hands of an Islamic, theocratic government?
For the record, I despise Assad; he is a ruthless maniac and he surely has no scruples. I'm just afraid the alternative can be even worse.
You know what we need to do? Make a marijuana bomb. Get everybody over there high. That'll calm em down.
Quote from: "DunkleSeele"And what will happen if those chemical weapons will fall in the hands of an Islamic, theocratic government?
I don't know what will happen (and neither do you). I don't even know whether or not such a government will even form. I think some people are using the boogie man of a sharia takeover of Syria as an excuse for not lifting a finger to stop chemical genocide. There comes a point where things are so fucking horrible that you go in and do something about it and roll the dice on the aftermath because the alternative is letting people get wiped out en masse. If a sharia takeover occurs and Syrians allow themselves to think of us as villains then oh well. At least we know we did what was right. And it will be the first time in a while that the US government could claim that about anything.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Syrians allow themselves to think of us as villains then oh well.
Oh why would they 'allow' themselves to think such a thing at all?! I mean what on earth could be the reason?! :rolleyes:
If we were to enter Syria and stop the use of chemical weapons? I dont know. You're from the general region, why don't you tell us?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "DunkleSeele"And what will happen if those chemical weapons will fall in the hands of an Islamic, theocratic government?
I don't know what will happen (and neither do you). I don't even know whether or not such a government will even form. I think some people are using the boogie man of a sharia takeover of Syria as an excuse for not lifting a finger to stop chemical genocide. There comes a point where things are so fucking horrible that you go in and do something about it and roll the dice on the aftermath because the alternative is letting people get wiped out en masse. If a sharia takeover occurs and Syrians allow themselves to think of us as villains then oh well. At least we know we did what was right. And it will be the first time in a while that the US government could claim that about anything.
People in Syria have been already wiped out en masse well before the alleged use of chemical weapons. We're talking about more than 90'000 deaths, of which about 150 are due to the use of chemical weapons. Weren't those 90000 enough to decide to do "what was right"?
Or maybe the right thing to do would just be to not intervene once again in a foreign country just to play world police. Let's face it: if the US and/or its Western allies intervene in Syria, it won't be to save lives, or they would have taken action before. It will be, once again, just a political game. The US and the West didn't intervene in Iraq when Saddam was waging chemical warfare on the Kurds (and he really did). They had to fabricate, several years later, dodgy evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. When I look at the situation in Syria, it feels like deja-vu.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "DunkleSeele"Or maybe the right thing to do would just be to not intervene once again in a foreign country just to play world police. Let's face it: if the US and/or its Western allies intervene in Syria, it won't be to save lives, or they would have taken action before. It will be, once again, just a political game. The US and the West didn't intervene in Iraq when Saddam was waging chemical warfare on the Kurds (and he really did). They had to fabricate, several years later, dodgy evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. When I look at the situation in Syria, it feels like deja-vu.
Feels like? I love how polite you are. Are you single? :P
Happily married and father of a lovely kid! :-D
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "DunkleSeele"One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.
The Syrian government is waging chemical warfare on its own citizens. There isnt much that is worse than a Sharia government but certainly this is one of them.
There have been unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons usage since this war began, as well as countless massacres and atrocities committed, and only now is military intervention on the table. This seems awfully convienient given that it coincides with a major turning point in the war after the regime dealt some decisive blows to the rebels.
Potential chemical weapons use was never a "red line", and whether you massacre everyone in a town by gassing them or setting them on fire or shooting them doesn't make a difference. It is the excuse for intervention because the rebels are on the back foot.
This is not an argument for or against intervention, I'm just saying that the unverified, but highly likely fact that a small fraction of the atrocities committed in this war were with chemicals rather than knives and guns is the trigger for intervention is just the official line.
I'm sometimes polite..not here often, but am when I'm out in public. Here I can be a jerk among jerks and it gives me omnipotent powers beyond imagination! :D/
On second thought it might be the medication.. :shock:
The defense industry lobby needs war less their stock prices fall and who will be the recipients of the fine tools they manufacture? Well, it damned sure won't be their own kids and the few who do go, if any at all will be in the officer ranks at the pentagon 'making the tough decisions' of what corporation to buy what from.. Oh! Daddy's company! FUCK! That's a tough job!
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"QuoteOur intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment
It also had high confidence that Hussein had stockpiled WMD in 2003. It will have "high confidence" in any viewpoint it's ordered to have.
So we'll intervene militarily (only with some "assistance" - but isn't that what we did in Nam?), help to push Assad out of office and in a few years the rebels, now the legal government of Syria, will be staunchly anti-American.
What would we ever do if we had no enemies? (Even if we have to manufacture a new one every time we're about to run out of an old one.)
QuoteU.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters
I'm a little confused about something. Is someone deader if killed with chemical weapons than if you shoot him in the fucking head? If Assad just shot people in the head would be invited to a White House dinner? Why do we always have to be such fucking hypocrites?
Quote from: "Minimalist"QuoteU.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters
I'm a little confused about something. Is someone deader if killed with chemical weapons than if you shoot him in the fucking head? If Assad just shot people in the head would be invited to a White House dinner? Why do we always have to be such fucking hypocrites?
Because chemical weapons violate international law.
And they are dead either way yes, but they are tortured to death. Would you rather dying of poisoning, most likely losing control of bodily organs, extreme pain in your skin/eyes/nostrils/stomach or take a *boom*, dead bullet to the back of the head? That is why chemical weapons are wrong...
Lets look at the effects of some chemical weapons...
For gases like phosgene and chlorine, you end up choking to death. Imagine drowning, mixed with vomiting and extreme pain on your skin and rest of the body.
For mustard and gases like these, you get the benefit of it not acting immediately at the cost of it more slowly killing you. Your skin breaks out in rashes, which soon turn into painful blisters. Your eyes start to burn and you start having blood come out of your throat and rectum. Don't forget also the constant coughing, fevers and vomiting. Then your nose and throat start to swell and develop rashes and blisters until you end up suffocating.
Then finally there are nerve agents like Sarin gas... this shit will stick to your clothing and continue to release from it for over 30 minutes after exposure, meaning you can take the gas home and your entire family can suffocate to death as your nervous system fails! Yay, fun for the whole family!
So yes, it is sorta a big deal that he is using chemical weapons. Unless you think being tortured to death is at all similar to being shot in the back of the head, in which case you either have a high pain tolerance or a low empathy level.
The use of gas is a violation of Protocol III, and Syria isn't a signatory nation. We can't hold them liable for violating a treaty they're not a party to, we can just come down on them for doing something we find abhorrent. But, not being bound by Protocol III, Syria can't be violating it.
Yeah, people are tuuuuribble.
Quote from: "Colanth"The use of gas is a violation of Protocol III, and Syria isn't a signatory nation. We can't hold them liable for violating a treaty they're not a party to, we can just come down on them for doing something we find abhorrent. But, not being bound by Protocol III, Syria can't be violating it.
That's a nice little shift of blame then.
"We find this absolutely incompatible with human rights, but you don't agree it is a human rights violation, so we have no legal justification for upholding human rights."
But then if we do something about human rights violations, we are the bad guys? And what then is the point of having laws if it becomes perfectly acceptable if you just refuse to acknowledge it?
Makes sense. Personally, if being the bad guy means putting human life before the law, then I will be the baddest of them all.
This is what awaits the Syrian Christians if the "rebels" are helped by the US administration.
Syria militants massacre Christian village population (//http://syriareport.net/syria-militants-massacre-christian-village/)
QuoteThe massacre, carried out by Free Syrian Army militants reportedly targeted men, women and children in the Christian village of al-Duwayr/Douar close to the city of Homs and the border with Lebanon. The incident received little media attention, having occurred at the same time as thousands of Syrian troops converged on the insurgent-occupied town of al-Qusayr.
According to sources, around 350 heavily armed militants entered the village, broke into homes and assembled residents in the main square of the village where they were executed. The final death toll is not known but photos show severe damage to property in the village.
Syrian army sources said that they reached the village after the massacre, resulting in clashes with militants. Sources also reported that Turkish and Chechen extremists were among the perpetrators. Chechen militants are known to have kidnapped two Christian bishops in Aleppo earlier this year. The following images show al-Duwayr/Douar village after the massacre:
Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_civil_war)
An awful lot of people will be massacred if Assad is toppled.
Yeah... supporting an Islamic insurgency is not a good idea. The small scale of the use of sarin is not a threat to us. I wouldn't mind finding thier chemical agent production facilities and bombing them. Beyond that, both sides of this Syrian conflict are losers.
Quote from: "kilodelta"Yeah... supporting an Islamic insurgency is not a good idea. The small scale of the use of sarin is not a threat to us. I wouldn't mind finding thier chemical agent production facilities and bombing them. Beyond that, both sides of this Syrian conflict are losers.
I would support this more than anything; finding the warehouses and production facilities and destroying them.
That said, the U.S. does have one interest in seeing Assad fall... Hezbollah are aiding his cause, and that is an organization I fear having weapons in its hands more than the rebels. I think the hard-line Islamic rebels would focus most of their attention inward, where Hezbollah focuses their attention outwards.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Then finally there are nerve agents like Sarin gas... this shit will stick to your clothing and continue to release from it for over 30 minutes after exposure, meaning you can take the gas home and your entire family can suffocate to death as your nervous system fails! Yay, fun for the whole family!
Even thickened sarin would kill the person who got it on their clothes before they get a chance to carry a harmful level of off-gassing back home. Depending on the delivery method, most of the sarin should evaporate and pose an inhalation hazard. It is also a contact hazard in liquid form, but used most effectively in the form of a gas. It kind of makes sense to use sarin rather than VX. There is a less of a chance of killing people outside the target and downwind area. VX could kill people for days after the attack.
Quote from: "kilodelta"Quote from: "Shiranu"Then finally there are nerve agents like Sarin gas... this shit will stick to your clothing and continue to release from it for over 30 minutes after exposure, meaning you can take the gas home and your entire family can suffocate to death as your nervous system fails! Yay, fun for the whole family!
Even thickened sarin would kill the person who got it on their clothes before they get a chance to carry a harmful level of off-gassing back home. Depending on the delivery method, most of the sarin should evaporate and pose an inhalation hazard. It is also a contact hazard in liquid form, but used most effectively in the form of a gas. It kind of makes sense to use sarin rather than VX. There is a less of a chance of killing people outside the target and downwind area. VX could kill people for days after the attack.
Hmm, maybe I was looking at the wrong gas, but I woulda swore it said it was sarin that sticks into clothing for up to 30 minutes.
(Though I suppose I could stick into clothing and the wearer not be going any where, being dead and all...)
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "kilodelta"Yeah... supporting an Islamic insurgency is not a good idea. The small scale of the use of sarin is not a threat to us. I wouldn't mind finding thier chemical agent production facilities and bombing them. Beyond that, both sides of this Syrian conflict are losers.
I would support this more than anything; finding the warehouses and production facilities and destroying them.
That said, the U.S. does have one interest in seeing Assad fall... Hezbollah are aiding his cause, and that is an organization I fear having weapons in its hands more than the rebels. I think the hard-line Islamic rebels would focus most of their attention inward, where Hezbollah focuses their attention outwards.
Putting advanced weaponry into the region will mean it will inevitably end up in the hands of extremists. If it doesn't turn the tide of the war, and the regime reasserts control, those weapons will fall into the hands of the regime, and more worryingly hezbollah and other related groups. if the rebels win, then those weapons will remain with them or be sold on to people in the region who still have cause to fight, such as other extremist groups.
If these weapons take the form of anti-aircraft weaponry, then in a few years there'll be extremists in the region with the means of effectively shooting down commercial airliners, as well as the ability to fire upon military targets.
If the rebels are just given light arms, then it won't be enough to turn the tide of the war. If they're given anything more effective in a modern war then this weaponry will remain and destabilise the region and will fall into the hands of people who will still want to use it after the war is over.
Space age weapons and stone age minds are a dangerous mix.
Find an easy call and I would think someone makes it, but as it sits there seems to be no good guys here. Doing utterly nothing hasn't turned out well and escalation certainly isn't to appealing, but it'll escalate either way.
Russia, Iran, Hezballa and of course Assad on one side, Islamic extremists on the other. It feels s bit like to really shitty kids fighting and you have to decide which one to give the slingshot to and which one gets the BB gun..
What war was ever fought that wasn't for power and/or money or both? Someone always stands to become very wealthy and anymore the people standing to get the wealth already have more money than they can ever possibly spend so it leaves power and dictatorship.. Certainly it's not a moral issue when you're willing to flip a switch to kill tens of thousands. There are no morals in the 'calculous'..
Quote from: "DunkleSeele"One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.
Honestly, we (US/UK/France et al.) should just leave the fuck alone.
Meddling in the Middle East is just as long sorry road of people on all sides dying and religious conservatives carrying on the good work after 'the war' is over.
Nobody wins in this scenario, and Syria is arguably one of the most militarized in the region (thanks to their Russian and Iranian friends).
As noted, Syria did not sign the treaty....the US has plenty of treaties that it did not sign. The purpose of not signing them is that you are not bound by its conditions.
For a nation which dropped tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam we have suddenly gotten all high and mighty about "chemical weapons."
Sorry. Not buying it. This is a civil war and the "rebels" are every bit as much of a bunch of scumbags as the government. Maybe worse.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "DunkleSeele"One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.
Honestly, we (US/UK/France et al.) should just leave the fuck alone.
Meddling in the Middle East is just as long sorry road of people on all sides dying and religious conservatives carrying on the good work after 'the war' is over.
Nobody wins in this scenario, and Syria is arguably one of the most militarized in the region (thanks to their Russian and Iranian friends).
QFT
=D>
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"There is NOT ONE SENSIBLE thing in this scenario. The only thing will happen is radicalising people in the region, US and the others will get what they want
Temporarily. In the long run we'll say "how could THAT have happened?"
QuoteThis just happened a decade ago. Haven't you learned anything at all?
That's what I was going to say, but you said it first.
QuoteThis just happened a decade ago. Haven't you learned anything at all? How do you actually support all this now? What do you think this is? A computer game? This is fucking madness. It makes me sick.
Er... we bombed specific targets without any feet on the ground just a decade ago? Where did this happen?
QuoteWhich never happens,first wars do not happen like that, secondly because even IF there are chemical weapons, why any power would get in there without any real benefit or profit just to destroy them?
It worked for the Israeli jets that destroyed arms headed to Lebanon a few weeks ago. Granted, they are a bit more experienced than us...
Our involvement and policies in the Middle East is like some deranged guy sticking his dick in a beehive, getting stung badly, then furiously fucking the beehive while standing on an anthill and wondering why it hurts.
What benefit have we seen from dealing with this shit? If one wants to say it's about oil or money...well it's done a fat lot of good for us. Billions of dollars spent on various clusterfucks and nothing to say for our investments.
If we're doing it for humanitarian reasons (hint: we're not), then we sure fucked up. The result of that seems to be a greater radicalization of an already radicalized area, as well as spreading the shit worldwide via refugees and the like.
Getting involved with Syria, like getting involved in any other country in that region, is just going to result in a loss of lives, money, and fuck our international reputation more than it already is. And how long until they use the weapons we give them to raid one of our embassies.
Besides, why should I support helping people who would gladly kill me if they had the chance? Say we support the rebels, and they win. I decide to take a vacation to the now "free" Syria, then someone discovers that I'm a homosexual and an atheist. What the hell would happen? I'm guessing I'd either be shot, stoned, or beheaded.
In short, FUCK!
To be fair, I don't think its the U.S.'s place either; the U.N. needs to be given some teeth and not be able to be stagnated by the actions of one or two nations in regards to intervening in human rights violations.
Since Obama has decided that the US should arm the rebels, a few questions come to mind.
Is he performing background checks on the rebels?
Is he limiting the magazine sizes?
Is he making sure they're not getting any "assault weapons"?
Is he enacting a waiting period?
Is he limiting them to only one gun per month?
Syrians massacring each other in large numbers.
Obama: Give them more weapons. :-k
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"What benefit have we seen from dealing with this shit? If one wants to say it's about oil or money...well it's done a fat lot of good for us.
We don't know the motivations of our government. Mostly we believe what they tell us, because we don't have access to accurate information, and our "free" press is mostly just a propaganda outlet. I remember a friend saying, "If it's about insuring a cheap source of oil, then I'm all for invading Iraq." I've heard our leaders talk about the fear of a destabilized Mideast, like our involvement there somehow stabilizes it (and insures a flow of cheap oil).
But first how do you weigh the dollar amount of war against the savings from cheaper oil? And why has the price of gas more than doubled since we invaded Iraq? And why does the Mideast seem less stable now than before the invasion?
Another friend speculated that the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was to push the price of oil higher, a "theory" that first set me back on my heels, yet a theory that does adequately explain the results.
In fact, prior to the invasion, we were told that Saddam was dumping cheap oil into France and Germany, against UN sanctions, an action that would have tended to lower prices on the world market. Although that's was probably a minor setback to higher oil prices.
The bottom line is that expensive gas hurts most people. However, as one oil executive pointed out to me around 2006, "We are making so much money in oil right now, it boggles the mind."
But we have to wonder, "Would our government do something that would work so clearly work against the interests of the electorate, while benefiting a small number of our wealthy elite?" We might reject this thought because it sounds so offensively unethical, but we are talking about our government, not an ethical paragon of virtue.
The bottom line is that we can never know our leaders motivations, but we can identify major beneficiaries from the Iraq War as the oil industry and Halliburton. The rest of us were overall losers. But the Bush Administration would never have been so self serving, right?
Quote from: "SGOS"But we have to wonder, "Would our government do something that would work so clearly work against the interests of the electorate, while benefiting a small number of our wealthy elite?"
Who pumps billions of dollars into political campaigns, the guy standing at the pump buying gas, or the guy running the company that refines that gas? Tough decision which one to tilt government policy toward.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"What benefit have we seen from dealing with this shit? If one wants to say it's about oil or money...well it's done a fat lot of good for us.
We don't know the motivations of our government. Mostly we believe what they tell us, because we don't have access to accurate information, and our "free" press is mostly just a propaganda outlet. I remember a friend saying, "If it's about insuring a cheap source of oil, then I'm all for invading Iraq." I've heard our leaders talk about the fear of a destabilized Mideast, like our involvement there somehow stabilizes it (and insures a flow of cheap oil).
But first how do you weigh the dollar amount of war against the savings from cheaper oil? And why has the price of gas more than doubled since we invaded Iraq? And why does the Mideast seem less stable now than before the invasion?
Another friend speculated that the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq was to push the price of oil higher, a "theory" that first set me back on my heels, yet a theory that does adequately explain the results.
In fact, prior to the invasion, we were told that Saddam was dumping cheap oil into France and Germany, against UN sanctions, an action that would have tended to lower prices on the world market. Although that's was probably a minor setback to higher oil prices.
The bottom line is that expensive gas hurts most people. However, as one oil executive pointed out to me around 2006, "We are making so much money in oil right now, it boggles the mind."
But we have to wonder, "Would our government do something that would work so clearly work against the interests of the electorate, while benefiting a small number of our wealthy elite?" We might reject this thought because it sounds so offensively unethical, but we are talking about our government, not an ethical paragon of virtue.
The bottom line is that we can never know our leaders motivations, but we can identify major beneficiaries from the Iraq War as the oil industry and Halliburton. The rest of us were overall losers. But the Bush Administration would never have been so self serving, right?
Damn good post =D> =D> =D>
Thank you!