Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to give President Obama the power to launch

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Whether or not he is pro or anti war crimes has little relevance to his thoughts on aggressive military intervention.

The issue is whether these specific war crimes warrant military intervention.

If so, why us?

If us, why is it okay for us to do it outside established channels (United Nations)?

Even if we wanted to, can we even afford it?

If we can't do it in an official capacity because of Russia and China's security council vetoes, then it is Russia and China's fault.

Try to look at it less autistically and more like a rational person. And if we're talking war crimes, how about Guantanamo bay, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, drone strikes, sponsoring Israel's behavior, etc etc etc

You sound a lot like the western nations in the 1930s.

[Estolcles]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

just to make sure I understand your position. You are anti-Geneva convention?

I'm anti-Obama and everything the idiot stands for... because he certainly doesn't stand for America or it's troops. I'd call him a ******, but that'd be an insult to all the ******s in the land.

Hopefully he doesn't get us into WW3 before his term is up (but it's starting to look that way).

[r00t]

This poll was on Drudge yesterday

http://polldaddy.com/poll/7365970/

[Ahldagor]

if we give al-queda a country then terrorists will live forever.

if we give a secular leader more time in power then we can't really hit iran.

if we give the world a nuked iran and said fuck off then nobody would do a damn thing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...962055348.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=102x2105616 (Iraq did the same thing btw)

[Roku]

At least our allies to the north are preparing to stand by our side in ... the ... desert ...

Canadian Military Stealth Snowmobile

[mtb tripper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIYnfP-LacA

[Stinkum]

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

“The Syrian government’s...use of chemical weapons against its own people...[is] undeniable." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Aug. 27, 2013". (thanks Stephen)

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

“The Syrian government’s...use of chemical weapons against its own people...[is] undeniable." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Aug. 27, 2013". (thanks Stephen)

As much as Nancy Pelosi is indeed a dumb cunt, I think in this case they actually found, or claim to have found, residues from chemical weaponry at the site. Even if it is fabricated, the evidence is much more compelling (existent) than preceded Iraq.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As much as Nancy Pelosi is indeed a dumb cunt, I think in this case they actually found, or claim to have found, residues from chemical weaponry at the site. Even if it is fabricated, the evidence is much more compelling (existent) than preceded Iraq.

And they have shown no evidence displaying who released the chemical weapons. The strongman in charge who is winning the civil war? Or the Al-Qaeda-linked rebels that are hoping to draw the US into helping them? The former seems less likely, though I'd only throw the odds at maybe 2:1 in favor of the rebels. The claim they'll show proof it was Assad's government, but the longer we go without such proof, the more it seems they're hoping that aspect goes away.

Now, let's say we follow the president's plan of launching limited strikes on Assad in order to weaken his regime. Will that work? Unlikely. It will only solidify support as about the only thing Muslims hate more than other Muslims is foreigners interfering with their Muslim v Muslim bloodbaths. If we decide we need to stop the violence, we better be damn well ready to put a quarter million troops or more into the country. Half-assing our way through wars hasn't worked for the past 50 years and it isn't going to work now.

Finally, I saw Kerry saying this isn't a war. He defined it using some bullshit language such as "limited strike intended to reduce the enemy's ability to attack". But we're considering dropping bombs and launching missiles. That's war. If the government of Canada suddenly started launching cruise missiles (probably powered by maple syrup) at Washington DC, you can be pretty damn sure we'd consider it an act of war.

[Orruar]

Another point I forgot to make: Kerry was saying that if we don't launch an attack on Assad, it will mean many other dictators will see it as a green light to use chemical weapons on their people. Well, what is going to happen if we do create this clear rule that use of chemical weapons = US bombing a country in an attempt to destroy the regime? Anyone who wants to overthrow their government will now have infinitely more power than they did before. They don't need to worry about fighting their own war. All they need to do is figure out a way to gas a few thousand of their fellow countrymen and the US will come do it for them. It's entirely conceivable that launching an attack will lead to many more chemical weapons attacks in the future.