Chemical Weapons

[Nunavut Patrick]

It's getting a bit serious. No?

 

Putin:

Russia will help Syria in case of Western attack.

 

PUTIN: Russia Will Continue To Help Syria If The US Attacks - Yahoo! India Finance

 

According to Putin The "coalition" in fact is, US, their puppet state Turkey, their lovechild Saudi Arabia, their Poodle UK, France and Canada. That's about it. The rest are either against or really reluctant. hmmm...

 

Keep Canada out of it, Harper said we ain't getting involved.

 

As for Putin, he is a bad hat and dangerous.

 

I see an Olympic boycott coming up.

 

I always knew the real enemy was those commie bastards; they just change their stripes from commies to oligarchical bastards.

 

Wait for the prevailing winds to shift, kick the survivalists out of the grain silo's and let 'er rip.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The wording is in the amendment as reported by Reuters.

 

I'll need to see the entire wording of the amendment. Do you have a link? I've just been a bit busy the last couple of days to catch up.

 

That's a bit of a defensive reply mate, I wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was just wondering if you had changed your mind any, seeing as the goalposts have already started moving. I think we all deplore the use of chemical weapons, but I know I don't trust US motives in this at all and that rewording of the objective at such an early stage is a cause for concern.

 

Nope, I haven't changed my mind mate, I'm of the same position I was right at the start. If they have a limited intervention, which is launched on a sound legal basis and on reliable, verifiable intelligence, then I support it. If they go further than that - and considering Congress hasn't even voted yet, much less any bombs dropped, it hasn't gone anywhere yet - then unless there's a sound reason for it, then I'm against it. Just like I've always been.

 

Brzenzinski was also an early skeptic (ultimately proven correct of course) of the Ira war.

 

That makes two of us.

 

That viewpoint relies only on US/UK sources [/url]

 

What viewpoint? That the authenticity of the evidence presented is debatable either way? I find anybody blindly dismissing it equally as dubious as anybody falling over themselves to blindly believe it. However, we can judge from the different scenarios available to us.

 

 

I don't think you should take any suggestion of you being a war-hawk seriously, it's hardly worth bothering yourself with.

 

I do think you're giving the US far too much of the benefit of the doubt on this one though. You're like the guy in a zombie flick who is willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when not doing so is wiser. It usually end up with you seeing your own innards before you die.

 

I'm not really giving the US the benefit of the doubt, I'm just sat in the middle. Waiting. I'm not giving some of the baseless assertions more benefit than the French or US intelligence. That'd be weird. So I guess I'll just see how it goes.

 

Usually I'm against any non-defensive military action. I can see occasional and limited use for intervention though.

[Strontium]

If Putin says Kerry is lying, it must be true. Who ever heard of a KGB man not telling the truth? Clearly all of Kerry's anti-war activism over the decades has just been cover for his militaristic ambitions. And all three of his Purple Hearts are probably fake too.

[Nightcat]

As for Putin, he is a bad hat and dangerous.

 

indeed.

[Nightcat]

"we are telling the truth this time, here is the evidence. I know we fooled you almost all the previous times, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo but now we are telling the truth. We are spreading democracy"

 

Lolz

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Lolz

 

Do you have any idea how this makes you appear to people on here? Others are taking time to have a debate and all you've got to add is 'hahaha' and 'lolz'. You come across as a right ignorant prick.

[Nightcat]

Do you have any idea how this makes you appear to people on here? Others are taking time to have a debate and all you've got to add is 'hahaha' and 'lolz'. You come across as a right ignorant prick.

 

You? talking about ignorance. He He He. What debate? you are a joker. You think this is all about you. I wonder why did they not invite you to the G20 summit to explain to them your interesting perspective. Lolz Lolz Lolz Lolz

[Ranxerox]

Do you have a link?

 

No but Reuters don't make up quotes. Political reporting in the US is religiously fact-checked by multiple sources when it comes to quoting politicians or legislation. The same bit about "changing momentum on the ground" is also reported by several other news sources

 

The ABC news link includes a White House statement which refers to "political transition" as a stated goal of the strikes.

 

Senate panel votes to authorize Syria strike | Fox News

 

Senate Panel Backs Resolution on Use of Force Against Syria - WSJ.com

 

Senate Committee OKs Resolution for Military Force in Syria - ABC News

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

No but Reuters don't make up quotes.

 

 

Thanks for that. Still, my position remains the same. Of course, I look forward to being told how I'm swallowing what the mass media's propaganda all whilst being told to believe the religiously fact-checked Fox news without so much as an eyebrow being raised.

 

I'm back at the desk now, with a cup of tea, so I'll have a look at the days goings on. I'm not going to base my opinion on snippets, though. Regardless of how patronising the tone.

[zigackly]

I would actually be up for a lot more intervention in oppressive regimes, regardless of whether chemical weapons were involved, if only I thought I could trust the motives of those involved and that we would end up with something better. The UN, like most political entities, is a great idea in principal but entirely spoiled by selfish politics.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

FFS, I assumed that this was a new amendment from today. Surely you're not talking about the non-binding statement of policy that talks about the transition to democratic government from two days ago? Please. It's meaningless.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I would actually be up for a lot more intervention in oppressive regimes, regardless of whether chemical weapons were involved, if only I thought I could trust the motives of those involved and that we would end up with something better. The UN, like most political entities, is a great idea in principal but entirely spoiled by selfish politics.

 

Ending up with something better is the tricky part, isn't it. If there was a sensible set of criteria from which to operate on a global scale - and it applied to our allies as much as our enemies - then I'd be happy enough to go along with limited intervention in certain places.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I wonder if Obama will go ahead anyway, what with it looking like it's going to fail to get congressional approval. Judging by his reluctance to say he wouldn't, I suspect he will.

[Ranxerox]

FFS, I assumed that this was a new amendment from today. Surely you're not talking about the non-binding statement of policy that talks about the transition to democratic government from two days ago? Please. It's meaningless.

 

The amendment is the one the Senate Committee voted on that authourizes the use of force , didn't bother to read the links did you.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The amendment is the one the Senate Committee voted on that authourizes the use of force, didn't bother to read the links did you.

 

Whilst I was on my phone? Erm, no. When I was back at the computer, erm yeah. Not the Fox News one, though. Even for an easy-led idiot like me that's a little much. EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I'd already read about it when it actually happened.

 

Zig said it was a new development, so I assume it was. Again, easily led. But yeah, it's essentially pretty meaningless. Not only because it's not-binding, but because it looks like it won't pass.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Numero Veinticinco

[Red Phoenix]

If Putin says Kerry is lying, it must be true. Who ever heard of a KGB man not telling the truth? Clearly all of Kerry's anti-war activism over the decades has just been cover for his militaristic ambitions. And all three of his Purple Hearts are probably fake too.

 

Kerry is almost definitely lying, just because he's been anti-war in the past it doesn't mean he isn't lying here. Even though Putin will have a lot of issues with corruption and will also be fascist to a degree like most other world leaders, at least he isn't using Russian forces to try and play world cop (or world plunderer.) every few years like the US.

 

The issue with Russia is maybe that they're so conflicted due to the power of Gazprom that they can't speak out about the oil and gas issue so much. It'd be good if Russia and other countries put some more effort into trying to call the US out on what looks like clear bullshit though.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Red Phoenix

[Ranxerox]

I'm not going to base my opinion on snippets, though.

 

More snippets for you to ignore, deride, deny, etc. They all confirm the mission creep in the Senate Committee Resolution.

 

Senate committee approves resolution authorizing U.S. strike on Syria - The Washington Post

 

BBC News - Syria crisis: US Senate committee backs use of force

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/divided-senate-panel-approves-resolution-on-syria-strike.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

No, they don't confirm that at all. I've read them when they came out yesterday and the day before. I'm not convinced you've got the first idea what mission creep actually is. It seems you've heard it and you're unthinkingly parroting it. This is the issue being spoken down to by somebody who doesn't really have a grasp on the subject.

[Red Phoenix]

I always knew the real enemy was those commie bastards; they just change their stripes from commies to oligarchical bastards.

 

I think it's safe to say both sides have done that at this point!

[Strontium]

I actually understand some of the concerns people have about regime change. Though it's not a stated aim of the proposed military action, it's difficulty to see how Assad can remain in power and be re-accepted into the international community after gassing his own citizens.

[Ranxerox]

Whilst I was on my phone? Erm, no. When I was back at the computer, erm yeah. Not the Fox News one, though. Even for an easy-led idiot like me that's a little much. EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I'd already read about it when it actually happened.

 

Zig said it was a new development, so I assume it was. Again, easily led. But yeah, it's essentially pretty meaningless. Not only because it's not-binding, but because it looks like it won't pass.

 

So you no longer support the resolution.

 

Not sure what you mean by meaningless, this committee vote is the first step in the resolution becoming law, not sure the Whitehouse and Sen McCain feels its meaningless. Nor the worlds media who all made it a top story.

 

Hopefully it doesn't pass then the whol bloody mistake will come to a just end. Obama has already stated he won't go without Congressional approval.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

So you no longer support the resolution.

 

I never said I supported the resolution. I said what I support, if what the Americans do coincidentally aligns with that then I support it by default. If they don't, I don't. It's simple and I've said it at least five times, maybe ten times in this thread. Surely you're not daft enough to think this vote means they must do certain things? Surely. Surely?

 

Not sure what you mean by meaningless, this committee vote is the first step in the resolution becoming law, not sure the Whitehouse and Sen McCain feels its meaningless. Nor the worlds media who all made it a top story.

 

It's meaningless because it's non-binding.

 

Hopefully it doesn't pass then the whol bloody mistake will come to a just end. Obama has already stated he won't go without Congressional approval.

 

Link? He said twice this afternoon that he wouldn't make any comment on going in without Congress' approval. In fact, he went on about lots of things which suggested he still would.

[Ranxerox]

No, they don't confirm that at all. I've read them when they came out yesterday and the day before. I'm not convinced you've got the first idea what mission creep actually is. It seems you've heard it and you're unthinkingly parroting it. This is the issue being spoken down to by somebody who doesn't really have a grasp on the subject.

 

 

Ha that's you, belittle and insult when opposed. I've kept the personal insults out of this. I couldn't care less what you're convinced of, just wanted to ensure others reading this thread got the real story instead of your mind numbing insults.

 

You know there is a reason this resolution will likely be defeated in congress and that is that it is a foolish idea.

 

By the way what are your credentials for expertise in this area?

 

I'll take advice of people who actually know what they're talking about Zbig, Pollack, Andrew Sullivan, Fareed Zakaria.

[Ranxerox]

 

Link?

 

Tony Blinken: Not Obama's 'Intention' To Attack Syria If Congress Votes Against It

 

Not that you'll read it or anything.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Ha that's you, belittle and insult when opposed. I've kept the personal insults out of this.

 

Bolocks, you've done nothing but talk down to me. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about and my patience is wearing thin with it. Mission creep? Fuck me.

 

By the way what are your credentials for expertise in this area?

 

I don't feel the need to prove myself to you, thanks all the same. Try sharing an opinion rather than posting links to other people's. If I wanted to talk to Brzezinski, I'd just that.