Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[dexters]

There will be no invasion. Military force will be used to punish Syria, and target Syrian assets which might indirectly help the rebels ; This will also humiliate Russia who is the patron to Syria and warn Iran, also a geo-strategic enemy who supports Syria.

It also has the nice bonus of allowing Obama and the west to live up to all the rhetoric and red lines against chemical weapons use.

And for those eager to claim this is just like Bush in 2003; note the following gaping differences

1) Obama is hesitant entering into this one, as this proxy war has been ongoing for 3years now
2) US public has no apetite for war, while the public in 2003 still 'trusted' the neocons and people who doubted the war rhetoric might as well have been Bin Laden himself. This will be very much a Clinton-esque military action. A lot of theatre , night-time videos of tomahawks being fired and correspondents filing breathless reports well away from the fighting for CNN and 24 hour news channel.
3) Europe, France in particular is behind this. Actually Europe is ahead of the Americans on this. There is no trans-atlantic rift, no moral high ground from the anti-war crowd to crow about. The 'other side' consist of states like Iran, Russia and China. And frankly, the west has the moral high ground.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Why would you do that? It's part of a historical exhibit.

That was more or less a play on the "zombie apocalypse, lets hide in a silo!" thing.

But instead of saying the completely expected, I said the exact reverse!

It should be in TvTropes.

 

[Rashiminos]

So, if BBC is to be trusted, the West is again walking into yet another Middle East fiasco.

*Sigh* will people never learn...

The US military has a lot of prepared plans for hypothetical scenarios. That doesn't necessarily mean they will be used.

Wait a second, did we start talking about bombing Iran too?

Do you mean "we" as in CFC or "we" as in American realpolitik, because with the latter the start date for that conversation is somewhere between 1979 and 2003?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think this 1 min video sums up the situation:


Link to video.

Keep laughing though :/

 

[Rashiminos]

Ah, semantics. The last resort of the one who does not have an actual argument.

Or perhaps it's a relevant place to look when you want to argue with someone other than yourself who has assumptions different from your own. Dismissing the semantic aspects of the argument is just talking past people. If you want people to likewise dismiss your arguments, by all means. Otherwise, establishing (or reviewing, in this case) semantics provides for a common ground in which to examine the larger argument. You know that getting on the same page thing?

If I stated that Saddam being a US stooge should/ did not give someone the right to excuse his actions, then I would be implying that someone, whether in this thread or outside of it, had excused those actions.

Yes.., but let's examine the context where you said the statement you actually said:

In Vietnam it was an excuse, in Korea there were legitimate reasons to believe it might be the first step in further communist expansion. The contexts were very different. And Saddam was a US stooge, yes. This should not excuse his actions in Kuwait.

This is post 115 minus the quote of Forma's post 114. "This should not excuse his actions in Kuwait." is addressed to Forma in an immediate sense (and more generally the thread.)

It's an imperative statement. It's telling Forma what to believe about whether Saddam's invasion should be excused. If you honestly believe he doesn't think so either, then it's redundant. It's not so redundant if you're allowing the possibility that he might believe those actions were excused, and if that possibility is true, you're demanding he change his mind.

Spoiler :

Edit: You could add a disclaimer to your posts and/or signature about "LordBaalspeak" if you want go that route.

When I say that Saddam being a US stooge should/ did not excuse his actions, I am merely stating that his actions are inexcusable. If I say that a woman being scantily clad does not excuse rape, am I implying that anyone in this thread has said that it does?

Depends on who you say it to. If it describes your own opinion -- No problem. If it's addressed to someone else, why not try to take their perceptions (of your words) into account?

As for switching from "should" to "did," while the two words mean slightly different things it is obvious from context that I am not using them to mean different things. "Should not" indicates I blieve such an excuse would be undesirable, "did not" means such an excuse didn't happen. Contextually, they boil down to the same damn thing in my original post, so why do you bring it up at all? It was a simple mistake in any event; I did not bother to go back to the original post to check my precise wording.

First, I would like you to think of a poster besides yourself who uses "obvious" about his/her posts fairly frequently, and then insists others are misinterpreting them. Second, I'm not the only one who brought it up. Third, I agree that it was a mistake. Fourth, the second and the third are related.

Fifth, the "not going back to check and insisting on what you thought you said rather than accounting for the possibility someone didn't understand what you meant to say" thing is potentially a problem.

If you're going to resort to semantic arguments, at least get your semantics right.

I think I did hit the right mark on that. You appear to have unconsciously corrected yourself somewhat. Your mind seems to be catching up. It currently seems to be rationalizing some interchangeability between should and does/did. The funny thing is that my spoiler in the other post indicates an anticipation of that rationalization. Boil/bake, close enough?

 

[gay_Aleks]

I think this 1 min video sums up the situation:


Link to video.

Keep laughing though :/

After this video...

I am about to write a presidential message to Obama, saying:

"Dude, when did you turn into Pennywise?!"

 

[CavLancer]

I suggest 'The Clinton Gambit'.

Cruise missiles against baby food manufacturers.

I read somewhere that someone thinks Obama is a Muslim, he could just surrender and let Syria rebuild our devastated infrastructure.

Could take the New Jersey out of mothballs and hit em with 'The Reagan Retaliation'. Nothing like a big badass battleship (BBB) sitting offshore tossing in 16" shells to get someone's attention with the message... "You've been bad, now its our turn."

Alternately, the French and Brits called for strikes, let them do it. The USN is busy leaving, heading for Asia. Certainly the Brits and French have spent enough time historically blasting the crap out of each other that someone remembers how to do it.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I have no problems with giving New Jersey to anybody.

In fact, simply for that fact I'll become a historian and commend whoever does that.

I mean, screw New Jersey. Also, Detroit. Don't forget Detroit.

 

[beingofone]

http://www.examiner.com/article/hacked-e-mails-reveal-washington-approved-plan-to-stage-syria-chemical-attack

Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack

 

[CavLancer]

Hacked emails also show that I didn't change my underwear this morning but I DID! Really! I mean I was going to but the phone rang, there was someone at the door, the e m e r g e n c y terror warning level was raised to o r a n g e!

Raised in Jersey, absolutely willing to shove it off into the Atlantic...if it weren't for the pizza.

Syria should be in the part of the world policed by the EU. The US can't afford it anymore, and we have the Pacific, which is big nuf.

 

[Winner]

It's still credible enough to put Seoul at too high of a risk to be worth an attack on them.

Iran can't fight back better than any of the other countries we've bombed, they are using the same old tech for the most part. Stealth bombers and Tomahawks walk all over USSR era and slightly newer air defenses.

They still fly F-4's with no part supplies for god sakes.

Uhm, Iran has a long history of "winning" over the West by using unorthodox tactics and leveraging proxy groups to make our lives so difficult that in the end there is some sort of "cold peace" accommodation. Attacking Iran would be a TERRIBLE mistake. Not to mention that's what the Saudis have been bribing manipulating us (=the West) to do all along, which is one more good reason NOT to do it.

For starters, they will disrupt shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, so bye bye "cheap" oil. I am sure American voters will respond well to that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Syria should be in the part of the world policed by the EU. The US can't afford it anymore, and we have the Pacific.

Much like Libya was supposed to be part of the world policed by the Ottoman Empire in 1912. Similar abilities to project power

 

[CavLancer]

A trillion dollars from the major oil producers and we should attack Iran, then pump it dry while we 'rebuild' .

 

[Winner]

As for Syria, I understand the US only wants a "punitive" strike, not even a full blown air campaign to enforce a no-fly zone or to depose Assad completely.

Every time I think Western strategy in the Middle East has hit rock bottom of institutional idiocy, I am proven wrong

This will end up being a clusterfrak to behold, trust me.

 

[CavLancer]

Much like Libya was supposed to be part of the world policed by the Ottoman Empire in 1912. Similar abilities to project power

Its not really all that far away, yes? Hmmm. Maybe they could use UPS power projection and ship the bombs?

 

[beingofone]

Oh of course this could not possibly be a false flag in order to further dominate the Middle East by the West.

Assad is using well grounded strategic planning and wants to pick a fight with USA and Britain because he wants to occupy New York and London.

 

[CavLancer]

I've occupied New York, its really not all that great of an attraction, excepting always the pizza.

 

[Lord Baal]

Or perhaps it's a relevant place to look when you want to argue with someone other than yourself who has assumptions different from your own. Dismissing the semantic aspects of the argument is just talking past people. If you want people to likewise dismiss your arguments, by all means. Otherwise, establishing (or reviewing, in this case) semantics provides for a common ground in which to examine the larger argument. You know that getting on the same page thing?


Yes.., but let's examine the context where you said the statement you actually said:


This is post 115 minus the quote of Forma's post 114. "This should not excuse his actions in Kuwait." is addressed to Forma in an immediate sense (and more generally the thread.)

It's an imperative statement. It's telling Forma what to believe about whether Saddam's invasion should be excused. If you honestly believe he doesn't think so either, then it's redundant. It's not so redundant if you're allowing the possibility that he might believe those actions were excused, and if that possibility is true, you're demanding he change his mind.

Spoiler :

Edit: You could add a disclaimer to your posts and/or signature about "LordBaalspeak" if you want go that route.

Depends on who you say it to. If it describes your own opinion -- No problem. If it's addressed to someone else, why not try to take their perceptions (of your words) into account?

First, I would like you to think of a poster besides yourself who uses "obvious" about his/her posts fairly frequently, and then insists others are misinterpreting them. Second, I'm not the only one who brought it up. Third, I agree that it was a mistake. Fourth, the second and the third are related.

Fifth, the "not going back to check and insisting on what you thought you said rather than accounting for the possibility someone didn't understand what you meant to say" thing is potentially a problem.

I think I did hit the right mark on that. You appear to have unconsciously corrected yourself somewhat. Your mind seems to be catching up. It currently seems to be rationalizing some interchangeability between should and does/did. The funny thing is that my spoiler in the other post indicates an anticipation of that rationalization. Boil/bake, close enough?

If I apologise for using one word instead of a slightly more appropriate word in a comment to someone who is not you over a page ago, will you shut up? Even Forma doesn't seem to have a problem with my comment. I can see that it is possible to misconstrue my first statement, but honestly, even that is a stretch and I was surprised when Forma brought it up. Regardless, my clarification in my very next post should have solved the issue. I have literally no idea why you are accusing me of deliberately implying that I would mischaracterise another poster's position, especially as it was not you I was talking to.

 

[red_elk]

Meanwhile in Israel...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.543489
Sharp increase in demand for gas masks. Why could it be?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Exactly Red_Elk.
Did you read the two Global Research articles I linked? These terrorists never attack Israel. Syria is not going to attack Israel.

BTW, the US conducts 85% of all the world's arms sales. Half of that is to Turkey, Israel and Qatar.

Sent via mobile.