|StanleyPain - 2013-08-30 |
Well, it takes a war criminal to know war crime, I suppose.
|SolRo - 2013-08-30 |
Don't worry rummy, I'm sure it will only last a few days, maybe weeks... I doubt months.
|takewithfood - 2013-08-30 |
That is weapons-grade hypocrisy.
When you're right, you're right.
Rodents of Unusual Size
I want to shove depleted uranium up where the sun don't shine.
In his anus.
And then his anus would get cancer.
Jet Bin Fever
Actually DU only emits alpha particles, which aren't penetrative and couldn't piece the mucus layer of his anus. Well... maybe... but it would be a lot less dangerous than you think and he would have to keep it up there for a while.
|EvilHomer - 2013-08-30 |
That which has been, is that which shall be, and that which is done, that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
|Paracelsus - 2013-08-30 |
Look, Rummy, if France agrees with us, and freaking Lindsey Graham is more or less on the side of the administration on this, maybe you think you're on the wrong side of the math?
I think I understand how he must be programmed!
Set 'War' 'Good'
Set 'War' 'BAD''
I'm sorry, you describe maybe an 8-bit thinking that is way out of his league.
|Sexy Duck Cop - 2013-08-30 |
Tangent, but this has been annoying me for a long time:
I get why 90% of Americans are opposed to this. Really, I do. Lots of smart people with intelligent, well-constructed arguments based on real-world experience. And if you oppose the war in Syria because it's a strategically dumb idea, fine. But why is it that virtually all of these people seem perfectly content to shrug off Bashar al-Assad mowing down hundreds of thousands of his own people as "shit happens?"
The Internet went apeshit when they found out the government has been monitoring the spam in their Yahoo account. They get worked up if a person they've never met is held accountable for very publicly leaking classified documents. They form activist groups to protest one dumbfuck hillbilly representing 150 people in rural Iowa for saying something less than progressive. But if a lunatic is razing an entire country to the ground and spraying nerve gas on thousands of people, everyone's primary concern seems to be mocking our government for even considering doing something about it.
Like I said, I get that there's a million practical reasons to think this is a bad idea. But let's not forget the reason we're here in the first place.
I'd wager that most if not all "humanitarian" US military actions in the last century at least were almost entirely strategic in reality, and the "humanitarian" angle was a fortunate side benefit.
I agree with you, Sexy. Despite all the very good arguments that have been raised against our President's decision to go to war, alone if need be, the fact remains that Saddam is an absolute monster, and Iraq will be better off without him.
Sic semper tyrannis! Well, tyrannis alienis, at any rate.
Sexy Duck Cop
"I agree with you, Sexy. Despite all the very good arguments that have been raised against our President's decision to go to war, alone if need be, the fact remains that Saddam is an absolute monster, and Iraq will be better off without him."
I need to stop trying to have nuanced discussions on the Internet. HEY HOW ABOUT THOSE VIDEO GAMES
Sexy Duck Cop
cog: Clearly you haven't played Civilization V. Otherwise you'd know this is the part where we wipe out Syria's army, then inexplicably offer a treaty where we offer Assad the entire Pacific Northwest and 52 gold per turn.
A Civ 3 outcome would be embarrassing
"US Tank Battalion Distroyed By Slightly Larger Force of Spearmen"
No, no, no, I really do agree with you. That was more or less the same argument that Christopher Hitchens used that convinced me to say "fuck you" to all my hippie friends and join the military. That, and "otherwise, gas will go up to .00 a gallon". That was a very good argument, too.
Anyway, you know what game is great? Europa Universalis IV. Fucki' A. I just subjugated France. Now the Union Jack is flying over Paris and Queen Pinkie III's elite Royal Marines are all freed up for their next mission: to sail across the world and seize the jewel of the Pacific, Glorious Japan. Seriously, screw Civ, if you haven't played EU yet you need to check it out.
Sexy Duck Cop
I largely agree, but I think people tend to overstate the role realpolitik plays in these decisions. You can be pragmatic without sacrificing your humanity. I'm sure many world leaders, if they had infinite time and unlimited resources, would love to liberate North Korea or Zimbabwe on strictly moral grounds alone. But in order to get things done in the real world, you have to form a broad coalition of people who have so little in common that the only feasible interventions are those that also have a strong economic component.
|THA SUGAH RAIN - 2013-08-30 |
I like the part about criticizing Obama for telegraphing our intentions. Didn't we have a literal count down to the hour when Bush said it was open season on Iraq?
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2013-08-31 |
Obama sent the CIA in to destabilize Syria and now he's pretending to act surprised because shit hit the fan. This is no surprise. They've been fanning the flames and trying to support any rebellion in Syria as a way to get to Iran. Fuck Obama and fuck the CIA.
|lordyam - 2013-08-31 |
my problem with u.s. involvement in syria is that there doesnt seem to be an end game. so we bomb the fuck out out of them, than what? we sit back and see how that plays out? fuck that. 'we trying to save the civilians' sounds like we want our guy in power so we can sell them into debt with our "support/aid".
history has shown how that works, in the last 50 years what action has the us taken that has ended good for the native population? laos? cuba? zaire? dominican republic? vietnam? lebanon? korea? honduras? grenada? egpyt? bolivia? somalia? bosnia? serbia? kosovo? sierra leone? when has it ever work? yeah we 'won' ww2, but we are still witnessing the end results of that conflict
Old_Zircon- "I'd wager that most if not all "humanitarian" US military actions in the last century at least were almost entirely strategic in reality, and the "humanitarian" angle was a fortunate side benefit."
if this was really about protecting a civilian populations than why does the u.s. remain silent about events in central africa or south asia and the Philippines? whats really at stake here? or what about our neighbors to the south who are under siege by drug cartels that could easily be compared to small armies. small armies that in some small part we helped arm and that are being funded by u.s. addicts. our reaction to that is 'build a bigger wall' and our feelings about those refugees is 'they're stealing our jobs!'
i feel for those involved, i do. it makes me ill when i read about it or watch the footage that comes out of these conflicts. but i just feel like im being lied to by the upper ups all over again. and this feels like a horrible idea- like pouring lighter fluid on a fire hoping it will burn itself out. no, i cant support this
and was there also a character limit on comments? i lost half of what i wrote, but i guess that may not have been a bad thing? i guess? :-/
| Register or login To Post a Comment|