kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

A very good question, Sparky. I don't think I'm educated enough about Syria or the issues to have a real opinion. I'm not sure it's a good idea to do something without congressional support. Nor do I think it's a good idea to act without UN approval. However, following those criteria, then we shouldn't do anything.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chipgreen


quality posts: 187 Private Messages chipgreen

I'm glad the page has finally turned....

It's hard to believe this whole "Arab Spring" uprising started with a guy in Tunisia setting himself on fire because authorities confiscated his fruit cart.

Next thing you know, we were supporting and aiding in the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak after he started trying to crush civil protests with violence. It seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect, the balance of power in Egypt ended up tilting closer to radical Islam than it was with Mubarak in charge. Not good for the US.

Then, we decided to help the Libyans take down Gaddafi after similar civil protests and violence against those protestors by the Libyan army. At that point, I started to become a bit puzzled as to what we hoped to accomplish in the Middle East by supporting these "rebels" who had questionable backgrounds and connections.

Mubarak had mostly been an ally to the US before the uprisings and Gaddafi had mellowed a lot since the days when he was considered an enemy and/or threat to the US. (Remember the mythical "Libyan Hit Squad" that Reagan claimed was in the US to kill him, justifying the bombing of Gaddafi's palace in the '80s?).

The deadly attack on the US embassy in Libya made things more complicated and made our previous support of the Libyan rebels even more questionable.

With those situations in the rear-view mirror, I believe we have been correct to stand by on Syria to this point. There are no "good guys" for us to support. The rebels have radical Muslim ties and the government has never been a friend to the US. In fact, Syria was rumored to be the country through which Al Qaeda was said to be funneling weapons into Iraq to fight US forces during our occupation.

However, now that Assad has "crossed the red line" of using chemical weapons against his own people, the global community seems inclined to take action and of course they look to the US for guidance.

Personally, I would prefer that we stay out of it even in the wake of recent events but I won't be overly upset at a small, targeted strike to show that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
chipgreen wrote:I'm glad the page has finally turned....
However, now that Assad has "crossed the red line" of using chemical weapons against his own people, the global community seems inclined to take action and of course they look to the US for guidance.

Personally, I would prefer that we stay out of it even in the wake of recent events but I won't be overly upset at a small, targeted strike to show that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

But how can we be sure it was in fact Assad, and not a false flag event..?

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 187 Private Messages chipgreen
rjquillin wrote:But how can we be sure it was in fact Assad, and not a false flag event..?


Which is exactly what Assad claims and the possibility is very bothersome. UN inspectors are presently investigating which is probably the main reason why there has not yet been any action but what are they really going to be able to prove, other than the fact that *someone* unleashed chemical weapons? I think that part is a given but how do we determine beyond reasonable doubt that it was Assad who did so? Will there even be an effort to make that determination?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:But how can we be sure it was in fact Assad, and not a false flag event..?



Am I naïve to think that the scenario you're suggesting borders on unbelievable?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Let the inspectors do their work and report on what they find. If there was chemical weapons use by the Assad regime, then take it up with the UN. I for one am tired of the U.S. sending cruise missiles at people we unilaterally decide are nasty and brutish, even if they're not short. Not every fight is our fight.

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise - I admit that this is a quick reaction, and I haven't delved deeply into this issue. But I haven't heard any convincing reason why we should add Syria to the list of countries we've bombed in the early years of this century.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Am I naïve to think that the scenario you're suggesting borders on unbelievable?



Yes.

It's not like a lot of them don't think martyrdom isn't the road to paradise and those 29 (or whatever) virgins.

The link I posted is interesting, in that there are factions within Syria that aren't necessarily Muslim Brotherhood or Al-Qaeda. And eliminating them (potential rivals) by any means isn't that unlikely a scenario. Especially if you can give the government the blame.


So while it doesn't have a high probability, it is possible that it wasn't the government.


It's kind of the same thing that was in Afghanistan, that led to the rise of the Taliban. We (the USA and allies) need to stay out of it.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Am I naïve to think that the scenario you're suggesting borders on unbelievable?

Hard to really know, especially when we see reports like THIS.

CT

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
rjquillin wrote:Hard to really know, especially when we see reports like THIS.



RJ are you wearing a tin foil hat

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
tytiger58 wrote:RJ are you wearing a tin foil hat

Will it protect me from an EMP?

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Hard to really know, especially when we see reports like THIS.



I love internet comments:

Through his operations, this Satanic agent has killed many. But as he has sown, in time so shall he reap.
"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:Hard to really know, especially when we see reports like THIS.



I was going to argue against Kyle's position until you posted this.

What's next, a RT video describing an American backed attempt to turn all Russia's little kids gay?

PS I say stay out of it. There is precious little to be gained here. It's not like we always react to evil acts- the west failed to do anything to help the (now South) Sudanese when there was unambiguous genocide going on... Anything overt we do seems like it ends up making things worse for the US and our Allies in the long run when it comes to Syria...

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman

The most persuasive argument to me was one of the last points in the article linked earlier. If we're going to declare it out of bounds to use chemical weapons, then letting Assad get away with it sets a bad precedent. A few explosions to deter future use doesn't seem like wasted effort. Otherwise, agreed it does seem like little or nothing to gain.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:The most persuasive argument to me was one of the last points in the article linked earlier. If we're going to declare it out of bounds to use chemical weapons, then letting Assad get away with it sets a bad precedent. A few explosions to deter future use doesn't seem like wasted effort. Otherwise, agreed it does seem like little or nothing to gain.



Exactly, a few Tomahawks to make a point. But no real need to invade and/or have a No-Fly Zone.

And what's funny is all of those who seem to be in favor of action, are the same ones who were against anything Bush did. As someone mentioned (not here), it all seems to be tied in with who's in the WH.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
MarkDaSpark wrote:Exactly, a few Tomahawks to make a point. But no real need to invade and/or have a No-Fly Zone.

And what's funny is all of those who seem to be in favor of action, are the same ones who were against anything Bush did. As someone mentioned (not here), it all seems to be tied in with who's in the WH.

And mostly on alternative media is ^^^ this ^^^ even spoken of, excepting Assad is already saying we've lost before we didn't start.

Good summary you posted to start this, but it seems the real time to do something really was a couple years ago, when it may have influenced the outcome, now it's almost exclusively a saving-face maneuver. The make-a-point don't use chemicals has merit, for those inclined to play by the rules, but with the players we now have does it really make any difference? I ran across another piece from RT on Breitbert where AQ was found to posses sarin. While it still may be a stretch, do we want to lob things in without near absolute certainty where/who to target. I don't claim to have the answer..

CT

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm

< suspend lurking >
I'm glad to see no one is chomping at the bit to go blow the Syrians back into the Old Stone Age.

As far as I can tell, there is no vital national interest involved here, and both sides in the Syrian civil war are thoroughly despicable - Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

Congress should just say "No".

< resume lurking >

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

Anyone from the conservative side willing to give Obama credit for waiting for congress to vote?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

ddeuddeg


quality posts: 29 Private Messages ddeuddeg
kylemittskus wrote:Anyone from the conservative side willing to give Obama credit for waiting for congress to vote?

Actually, Congressman Chris Collins, R, NY, 27 District, a freshman congressman who narrowly won his seat in an overwhelmingly Republican district, where he ran (after losing the Erie County Executive seat because we were all fed up with his self-centered arrogance, and declared he was through with running for public office) only because he was virtually assured of winning because of the huge enrollment advantage. The miserable SOB nearly lost anyway.

"Always keep a bottle of Champagne in the fridge for special occasions. Sometimes the special occasion is that you've got a bottle of Champagne in the fridge". - Hester Browne


Ddeuddeg's Cheesecake Cookbook

rpm


quality posts: 172 Private Messages rpm
kylemittskus wrote:Anyone from the conservative side willing to give Obama credit for waiting for congress to vote?



< suspend lurking >

Give him credit for not breaking the law?

Have we come so far that it's remarkable, and worthy of credit that a president does not break the law?

< resume lurking >

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

This article claims the NSA had intercepted Assad intel in advance of the attack, and did little to provide warning. I'll not quibble with that decision, likely others will. But if this is substantiated, it could provide support for lobbing some munitions at Assad.
I have little doubt the potential blow-back on Obama would be heavy had he acted lacking coalition and congressional support, and he saw that any action would be highly unpopular move, and responded as he did.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rpm wrote:< suspend lurking >

Give him credit for not breaking the law?

Have we come so far that it's remarkable, and worthy of credit that a president does not break the law?

< resume lurking >



Bush didn't wait.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Bush didn't wait.

I may well regret this question, but which Bush and when?

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rpm wrote:< suspend lurking >

Give him credit for not breaking the law?

Have we come so far that it's remarkable, and worthy of credit that a president does not break the law?

< resume lurking >



Peter King is basically calling him a chickenshit.

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
rpm wrote:< suspend lurking >

Give him credit for not breaking the law?

Have we come so far that it's remarkable, and worthy of credit that a president does not break the law?

< resume lurking >



+1

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:I may well regret this question, but which Bush and when?



He most recent Bush. And more than a few times. I'll have to check, but if I understand correctly, he broke the law RPM is talking about tens of times.

FWIW, I think I'm fairly convinced that we screwed up long ago and we're pretty stuck now. And helping rebels is likely a very poor idea since we have no idea who they "really are" or who will take over if they "win."

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman

Team America, World Police. F*ck Yeah.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rpm wrote:< suspend lurking >

Give him credit for not breaking the law?

Have we come so far that it's remarkable, and worthy of credit that a president does not break the law?

< resume lurking >



I think the last person who held the job and didn't break the law with impunity might have been the first of the John Adamses ;)

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
mother wrote:I think the last person who held the job and didn't break the law with impunity might have been the first of the John Adamses ;)



I think William Henry Harrison would pass muster for upholding the law while president. :-P

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
cmaldoon wrote:I think William Henry Harrison would pass muster for upholding the law while president. :-P



Touche. Playing both on the name Wm Harrison and the fact that he didn't have time to get uppity in office ;)

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
rjquillin wrote:



Wait ... who owns all the casinos outside Vegas and Atlantic City then?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Wait ... who owns all the casinos outside Vegas and Atlantic City then?



+1

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:+1

It must be Labor, or something, day, I think Mark and Kyle just agreed!

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
rjquillin wrote:It must be Labor, or something, day, I think Mark and Kyle just agreed!



We've been agreeing more lately. Either I'm mellowing, or he's coming over to the Dark Side.

And I'm not mellowing.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:We've been agreeing more lately. Either I'm mellowing, or he's coming over to the Dark Side.

And I'm not mellowing.



I think we agree on a lot of things. The biggest difference we have is obviously on social policies.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:I think the last person who held the job and didn't break the law with impunity might have been the first of the John Adamses ;)



Sorry to circle back, but this was my larger point. Bush Jr. was the most recent republican so I grabbed his name. I'm all for castigating Obama when he does something wrong (that absolutely horrible speech about the Zimmerman case) . However, my general view of most things is justice, i.e. treating similar things similarly. Obama is following the law while Bush (and many others) did not. Was RPM as caustic when Bush didn't as he is about Obama doing so? What about the vocal right in general? It's this us vs. them mentality that is, IMO, a major issue with our current political sphere. Not only do we tolerate it from those whom we pay to do a job, but we do it ourselves. And I think it's f***ing stupid and unquestionably detrimental.

I'll step off my box of soap, now.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Sorry to circle back, but this was my larger point. Bush Jr. was the most recent republican so I grabbed his name. I'm all for castigating Obama when he does something wrong (that absolutely horrible speech about the Zimmerman case) . However, my general view of most things is justice, i.e. treating similar things similarly. Obama is following the law while Bush (and many others) did not. Was RPM as caustic when Bush didn't as he is about Obama doing so? What about the vocal right in general? It's this us vs. them mentality that is, IMO, a major issue with our current political sphere. Not only do we tolerate it from those whom we pay to do a job, but we do it ourselves. And I think it's f***ing stupid and unquestionably detrimental.

I'll step off my box of soap, now.



Actually, you need to start eating it (the soap that is). You still haven't shown where Bush did anything illegal. And you even said you were going to look it up. I'm assuming you swallowed the liberal propaganda whole from MSNBC.

Bush got approval for Afghanistan & Iraq from Congress (including the Senator from Illinois, Barak H. Obama). Bush got approval from Congress for pretty much everything, so where was he illegal? And since Obama is continuing (and expanding on it all) Bush's policies, isn't he then illegal as well?


But you didn't have Bush pushing us into a war that Congress and the people didn't want. You have Obama doing that now with Syria.


Edit: Obama following the law? Since when? The DOJ is a joke, as well as the IRS and Education. He's arming those not normally armed (Education and Agriculture). And snooping on us far beyond anything Bush did.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, you need to start eating it (the soap that is). You still haven't shown where Bush did anything illegal. And you even said you were going to look it up. I'm assuming you swallowed the liberal propaganda whole from MSNBC.

Bush got approval for Afghanistan & Iraq from Congress (including the Senator from Illinois, Barak H. Obama). Bush got approval from Congress for pretty much everything, so where was he illegal?



You can't find anything at least extra-legal about: Extraordinary rendition? Enhanced interrogation? Domestic spying abuses? The abuse of military contractors? An explosion in no-bid procurement? Nearly anything that Darth Cheney was involved in?

There is plenty of grey area in the GWB admins 8 years.

We all know that Clinton and HWB weren't "strictly by the book" either. Regan had, among many other things, Iran-Contra...

Given that what we're really talking about is the executive being power-grabby, it's pretty universal IMHO.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Sorry to circle back, but this was my larger point. Bush Jr. was the most recent republican so I grabbed his name. I'm all for castigating Obama when he does something wrong (that absolutely horrible speech about the Zimmerman case) . However, my general view of most things is justice, i.e. treating similar things similarly. Obama is following the law while Bush (and many others) did not. Was RPM as caustic when Bush didn't as he is about Obama doing so? What about the vocal right in general? It's this us vs. them mentality that is, IMO, a major issue with our current political sphere. Not only do we tolerate it from those whom we pay to do a job, but we do it ourselves. And I think it's f***ing stupid and unquestionably detrimental.

I'll step off my box of soap, now.

I'm with you on the hypocrisy bit, but still waiting on exactly what Bush 43, the latest, did. And I agree we're pretty screwed either way at this point.

kylemittskus wrote:He most recent Bush. And more than a few times. I'll have to check, but if I understand correctly, he broke the law RPM is talking about tens of times.

FWIW, I think I'm fairly convinced that we screwed up long ago and we're pretty stuck now. And helping rebels is likely a very poor idea since we have no idea who they "really are" or who will take over if they "win."

I'm no fan of what 43 did, 'cause he did some amazingly stupid things, but as I recall, and could be wrong, he got congressional approvals. Fully willing to step back with some examples, but with an admittedly quick check I just didn't find an example, but did for Reagan and Clinton, and 43 did get bi-partisan approval before going into Iraq and Afghanistan.

CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:but as I recall, and could be wrong, he got congressional approvals.


Pretty sure he got approval for Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah. Since everyone is intent on making this just about not so congressionally authorized military strikes:
-Drone strike on Yemen in 2002
-US commando raid in Syria in 2008

Mind you the Bush team have technicalities ready to explain how those are authorized, just like Obama would have had them ready to explain Syria this time.