Intervene in Syria or no?

[CAA Flagship]

The world population is too high already.

Agree. We can't rely on disease to temper the world population growth. Damn doctors and drug companies are finding ways of fighting these diseases. HIV has turned out to be a big disappointment. I thought we would have lost many more than we did. We need a major world war where we lop off at least 10 million from the world population. Preferably in the Middle East or Russia or China. Also, we must convert all surviving soldiers to homosexuality so that they don't come home and start creating a baby boom, thereby negating the success of the war.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm a no on this. Especially since we've been telling Assad exactly what our plan is and I'm pretty sure we'll just launch some missiles targeting places where missiles used to be. Seems to me like a pretty stupid $350 Million boonedoggle.

That is just it. Assad has the weapons in a safe place where the rebels can't get to them. Probably in a place he feels is the safest. But if he thinks that America will bomb him. He is forced to move them within his limited control area which could expose them. It's a game of chess and our politicians are about to mess it up for the rebels.

[93henfan]

The world population is too high already.

Agree. We can't rely on disease to temper the world population growth. Damn doctors and drug companies are finding ways of fighting these diseases. HIV has turned out to be a big disappointment. I thought we would have lost many more than we did. We need a major world war where we lop off at least 10 million from the world population. Preferably in the Middle East or Russia or China. Also, we must convert all surviving soldiers to homosexuality so that they don't come home and start creating a baby boom, thereby negating the success of the war.

Yes, all Russian men need to be eliminated, and then a team of American men (including me of course) should be sent over to help "counsel" the Russian women and help them through their ordeal.

[CAA Flagship]

Agree. We can't rely on disease to temper the world population growth. Damn doctors and drug companies are finding ways of fighting these diseases. HIV has turned out to be a big disappointment. I thought we would have lost many more than we did. We need a major world war where we lop off at least 10 million from the world population. Preferably in the Middle East or Russia or China. Also, we must convert all surviving soldiers to homosexuality so that they don't come home and start creating a baby boom, thereby negating the success of the war.

Yes, all Russian men need to be eliminated, and then a team of American men (including me of course) should be sent over to help "counsel" the Russian women and help them through their ordeal.

I like the way you think.

[kalm]

Bronco and Leadbolt ripped the tits off this thread.

Also Sodomy.

[houndawg]

This is a lose, lose situation. Nothing to be gained by intervening.

Besides, the environmental impact study shows the longer the war goes on the more people will be killed, thereby reducing emissions into the atmosphere and reducing global warming. Letting them kill themselves off is the green thing to do and is earth friendly...

Not lose/lose for everybody. The usual crowd will make huge profits supplying the tools of the trade, eventually to both sides. If I weren't such an anti-capital, class warfare, Green Party leftist, I'd be seeing opportunity where others only see trouble.

Gotta admit that I'm touched to see dipshits like Bronco and the Pinheads changing their tune about continuous war on everything.

[houndawg]

The world population is too high already.

Agree. We can't rely on disease to temper the world population growth. Damn doctors and drug companies are finding ways of fighting these diseases. HIV has turned out to be a big disappointment. I thought we would have lost many more than we did. We need a major world war where we lop off at least 10 million from the world population. Preferably in the Middle East or Russia or China. Also, we must convert all surviving soldiers to homosexuality so that they don't come home and start creating a baby boom, thereby negating the success of the war.

Just transfer them into the Navy.

[houndawg]

Since when has America done the same?

WWI, WWII, and every humanitarian and natural disaster come to mind.

We usually have Marines handing out MREs on the streets before the local ruler decides to come out of his mansion.

"It is not improbable that the only way of maintaining our pre-eminent trade position and averting a panic is to declare war on Germany."

That's the US ambassador to Great Britain in a cable to Woodrow Wilson.

[ASUMountaineer]

This is a lose, lose situation. Nothing to be gained by intervening.

Besides, the environmental impact study shows the longer the war goes on the more people will be killed, thereby reducing emissions into the atmosphere and reducing global warming. Letting them kill themselves off is the green thing to do and is earth friendly...

Not lose/lose for everybody. The usual crowd will make huge profits supplying the tools of the trade, eventually to both sides. If I weren't such an anti-capital, class warfare, Green Party leftist, I'd be seeing opportunity where others only see trouble.

Gotta admit that I'm touched to see dipshits like Bronco and the Pinheads changing their tune about continuous war on everything.

Likewise with dipshits like Clooney and Pelosi.

[houndawg]

Not lose/lose for everybody. The usual crowd will make huge profits supplying the tools of the trade, eventually to both sides. If I weren't such an anti-capital, class warfare, Green Party leftist, I'd be seeing opportunity where others only see trouble.

Gotta admit that I'm touched to see dipshits like Bronco and the Pinheads changing their tune about continuous war on everything.

Likewise with dipshits like Clooney and Pelosi.

Well there ya go, just a couple of great minds thinking alike on a football forum..

[ASUMountaineer]

Likewise with dipshits like Clooney and Pelosi.

Well there ya go, just a couple of great minds thinking alike on a football forum..

The sad thing is, it's the dipshits that get into power, and us dipshits that leave them there.

[Cap'n Cat]

This is what bothers The Liberal Cap'n: How can a guy with a Nobel Peace Prize even think about bombing a country?

[D1B]

This is a lose, lose situation. Nothing to be gained by intervening.

Besides, the environmental impact study shows the longer the war goes on the more people will be killed, thereby reducing emissions into the atmosphere and reducing global warming. Letting them kill themselves off is the green thing to do and is earth friendly...

Not lose/lose for everybody. The usual crowd will make huge profits supplying the tools of the trade, eventually to both sides. If I weren't such an anti-capital, class warfare, Green Party leftist, I'd be seeing opportunity where others only see trouble.

Gotta admit that I'm touched to see dipshits like Bronco and the Pinheads changing their tune about continuous war on everything.

[DSUrocks07]

This is a lose, lose situation. Nothing to be gained by intervening.

Besides, the environmental impact study shows the longer the war goes on the more people will be killed, thereby reducing emissions into the atmosphere and reducing global warming. Letting them kill themselves off is the green thing to do and is earth friendly...

Irony.

Space exploration and colonizing other planets would help with expanding populations, which the GOP hates, you know with "God" and all.

War would also help with controlling population levels, which Libs hate, with their "love everybody" ideals.

[Grizalltheway]

Friedman wins. /discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opini ... c=rss&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SAY, did you see the news from Libya — the last country we bombed because its leader crossed a red line or was about to? Here’s a dispatch from Libya in the Sept. 3 British newspaper, The Independent:

“Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Qaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that NATO’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention, which should be repeated in Syria. ... Output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now.”

I keep reading about how Iraq was the bad war and Libya was the good war and Afghanistan was the necessary war and Bosnia was the moral war and Syria is now another necessary war. Guess what! They are all the same war.

[Bronco]

-

Krauthammer: Russians Were Playing Chess With Rank Amateurs And Saw Their Opening

BRET BAIER: Just to review, Charles, this started with Secretary of State Kerry answering a question in London in which right after he said it, the State Department said he was speaking rhetorically about a situation we thought had very low probability of happening and suddenly it may be U.S. policy.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Because I think the Russians were playing chess here with a set of rank amateurs and understood that that gaffe gave them the opening they wanted. There are two issues here: chemicals and the retaining in power of Assad and of the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad/Russian axis dominating the region.

And for the Russians who worry about their own Muslim -- unrest in the Muslim republics like Chechnya‎, the idea of the jihadists in the rebellion in Syria getting hold of chemical weapons is a nightmare. So, if you remove the weapons and you keep Assad in power, the Russians have achieved everything that Russia wants.

Obama's has seized on this because it's the only way he saves face. That's a high price to pay, but I assure you he will seize that. It will be his policy as of now and as of his speech tomorrow night.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ening.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

The world population is too high already.

Agree. We can't rely on disease to temper the world population growth. Damn doctors and drug companies are finding ways of fighting these diseases. HIV has turned out to be a big disappointment. I thought we would have lost many more than we did. We need a major world war where we lop off at least 10 million from the world population. Preferably in the Middle East or Russia or China. Also, we must convert all surviving soldiers to homosexuality so that they don't come home and start creating a baby boom, thereby negating the success of the war.

The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere on the planet, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the 7 billionth living person came into existence.
Lucky No. 7,000,000,000 probably celebrated his or her birthday sometime in March and added to a population that’s already stressing the planet’s limited supplies of food, energy, and clean water. Should this trend continue, as the Los Angeles Times noted in a five-part series marking the occasion, by midcentury, “living conditions are likely to be bleak for much of humanity.”
A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.

American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.
But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to 87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000 women—not enough to sustain our current population.
Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... oding.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

-

Krauthammer: Russians Were Playing Chess With Rank Amateurs And Saw Their Opening

BRET BAIER: Just to review, Charles, this started with Secretary of State Kerry answering a question in London in which right after he said it, the State Department said he was speaking rhetorically about a situation we thought had very low probability of happening and suddenly it may be U.S. policy.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Because I think the Russians were playing chess here with a set of rank amateurs and understood that that gaffe gave them the opening they wanted. There are two issues here: chemicals and the retaining in power of Assad and of the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad/Russian axis dominating the region.

And for the Russians who worry about their own Muslim -- unrest in the Muslim republics like Chechnya‎, the idea of the jihadists in the rebellion in Syria getting hold of chemical weapons is a nightmare. So, if you remove the weapons and you keep Assad in power, the Russians have achieved everything that Russia wants.

Obama's has seized on this because it's the only way he saves face. That's a high price to pay, but I assure you he will seize that. It will be his policy as of now and as of his speech tomorrow night.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ening.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nobody seems to have noticed that, inadvertenly or not, Obama is moving war making powers back toward Congress, where they belong.

[LeadBolt]

-



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ening.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nobody seems to have noticed that, inadvertenly or not, Obama is moving war making powers back toward Congress, where they belong.

I'm glad to see the big 0 following W's lead in taking this to Congress and not acting unilaterally without Congressional approval. Unfortunately he dispatched Mr. "I was for the war in Iraq before I was against it" to sell his message to Congress.

[∞∞∞]

This whole situation is an interesting study of public perception.

First, Obama was on the ropes for wanting to go to war. As the public's unhappiness grew, he gave the "decision" to Congress even though in reality, he can still call for limited strikes without their approval. Now the scrutiny has largely been deflected to Congress even though Obama is still heavily involved. With all its division, Congress completely fell for it.

But then the Russians get involved (as they should as members of the Security Council) and offer this alternative deal which Syria accepts. Now the Kremlin looks good even though without Obama's call to "war," the Russians wouldn't have made an offer. But the public's perception has a short memory and now it's Putin's administration that looks great.

What a chess game so far, on the home front and internationally. Unfortunately, for all the twists and turns, this game is seemingly being played for no real prize other than stroking egos. In the end, the Syrian people are still stuck in the middle being slaughtered by the FSA and SFA.

[ASUG8]

Just to be clear - if this Russian brokered deal goes through, it's still cool for Assad to kill people with conventional means like bullets and bombs, right?

[ASUMountaineer]

Just to be clear - if this Russian brokered deal goes through, it's still cool for Assad to kill people with conventional means like bullets and bombs, right?

Yes, the Obama administration was not concerned with 100k+ deaths by conventional weapons, only the few hundred by chemical weapons. It's so ridiculous, all I can do is

[Ibanez]

This whole situation is an interesting study of public perception.

First, Obama was on the ropes for wanting to go to war. As the public's unhappiness grew, he gave the "decision" to Congress even though in reality, he can still call for limited strikes without their approval. Now the scrutiny has largely been deflected to Congress even though Obama is still heavily involved. With all its division, Congress completely fell for it.

But then the Russians get involved (as they should as members of the Security Council) and offer this alternative deal which Syria accepts. Now the Kremlin looks good even though without Obama's call to "war," the Russians wouldn't have made an offer. But the public's perception has a short memory and now it's Putin's administration that looks great.

What a chess game so far, on the home front and internationally. Unfortunately, for all the twists and turns, this game is seemingly being played for no real prize other than stroking egos. In the end, the Syrian people are still stuck in the middle being slaughtered by the FSA and SFA.

I agree however, the Russians only got involved once Sec. Kerry asked for the weapons to be turned over. Russia got in too late. They could've taken action weeks ago but they struck on a deal that Sen. Kerry proposed. Granted, Kerry never expected it. Why wasn't this asked weeks ago? Putin might look good this week, but most people will still equate Russia with the USSR, especially since Putin is former KGB.

Now you have to wonder, what will be done with the weapons if they are turned over? Forget about storing them. Just destroy them.

In the end, Syrians are still screwed. They will continue to be killed with bullets and bombs.


Btw, there was an article in the NYT you should read. Here's the important question that was raised by a Democrat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world ... ml?hp&_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was more cautious. “If this thing is real, I think we should look at it,” he said. “But the question is this: Do you trust Assad, and do you trust the Russians?

[∞∞∞]

Yes, the Obama administration was not concerned with 100k+ deaths by conventional weapons, only the few hundred by chemical weapons. It's so ridiculous, all I can do is

The international community's issue with chemical weapons is that they can be spread by air and water to neighboring countries (or even further). They also kill more people per weapon compared to conventional means, and there's almost never a way for someone to run away from it. It's the efficiency of these weapons that's terrifying. Per cost and size, they're better at killing people than nuclear bombs.

I agree with your overall point though.

“But the question is this: Do you trust Assad, and do you trust the Russians?

No. And No.

[Ibanez]

The international community's issue with chemical weapons is that they can be spread by air and water to neighboring countries (or even further). They also kill more people per weapon compared to conventional means, and there's almost never a way for someone to run away from it. It's the efficiency of these weapons that's terrifying. Per cost and size, they're better at killing people than nuclear bombs.

Yep. Sarin, for instance, lingers in the air and gets stuck in clothes and on the skin. It's horrible.

The question remains, do we trust Assad to hand over all the WoMD? What is to stop them from handing over 1/3 of their stockpile or buying/manufacturing more? There isn't.