The Watering Hole

Well, Obama has asked for the ok for military action. What do you think?

I think we should stay the fuck out of it. Maybe this is one of those times we should take action. However, we stick our goddamn nose in other folks shit so much, I'm sick of it. We are not gonna stop people from killing each other and fighting in that part of the country. Thats what they do. It's sick, and I really feel for the children that were killed there. Horrible situation. But we are broke as hell and there is no threat to our country.

Seriously, I think Obama has taken some kind of republican/Bush pills or something. Is this guy really a Democrat?

I agree with everything you said there.  I was pleasantly surprised that our British Government was over-ruled by the house of commons in parliament. The government has to put this kind of thing to the vote for the entire house which includes the opposition parties and they were out-voted so thankfully we will not be poking our noses in there.  It's a recipe for complete disaster, just  the same that Iraq was and still is. The backlash of this in terms of terrorist attacks etc just goes on and on, it never stops....just opens up a huge can of worms that once they are out you can't put them back in.

How many Middle Eastern countries have we NOT fucked with?  King Obama just wants to check off another one...

I don't think anyone will support him this time.

Lets just hope congress considers this with emotions aside.

CraigBert — Aug 31, 2013How many Middle Eastern countries have we NOT fucked with?  King Obama just wants to check off another one...

I don't think anyone will support him this time.

Haha! Remember when you were spreading the urgent news about the semis full of chemical weapons that saddam was hiding? Amazing how your attitude towards intervention changes when it's not the guy you voted for in office.

Hookbender — Sep 01, 2013Lets just hope congress considers this with emotions aside.

If they consider it without emotions, then we're definitely going to strike.  Because based on our policy of intervention, the fact that the Syrian government just gassed a massive pile of civilians with Sarin gas pretty much compels us to act.  The only ereason we wouldn't is emotion--basically, that Iraq and Afghanistan have made us weary and skeptical of war as a solution for anything.  I believed that back then, and I believe it now.  I don't think war is ever a solution to anything.  However, you both voted for Romney... he would have been in there three months ago.  The fact that Obama is throwing this to the Congress to authorize is basically because he sees what you see... the people are tired of war.  And he's not going to send bombers without someone to pin it on.  But I'm pretty sure the Congress is going to authorize air strikes.

charger — Sep 02, 2013[quote author=CraigBert link=1377977579/0#2 date=1377983431]How many Middle Eastern countries have we NOT fucked with?  King Obama just wants to check off another one...

I don't think anyone will support him this time.

Haha! Remember when you were spreading the urgent news about the semis full of chemical weapons that saddam was hiding? Amazing how your attitude towards intervention changes when it's not the guy you voted for in office.

Um, I still believe that the chemical weapons just used were exactly what was "hidden" by Saddam in Syria.  

There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that the public will never know about.  Some good, a lot that's pretty fucked up.

My attitude hasn't changed.  If we're supposed to be the "World's Police Force," then we'll probably whack them with some cruise missles like other Democratic presidents like to do.  Bush had personal issues and took it a step further, but he also had several other countries willing to go along with him.  As I see it, Obama stands alone - except, ironically, for some Syrians who don't understand what's taking him so long to strike (as reported by Al Jazeera - which my satelite TV just started getting).

charger — Sep 02, 2013

However, you both voted for Romney...

"You both?"  Besides Hooky, who's the other?

I certainly didn't vote for either Romneyjerk OR Obamanation.

charger — Sep 02, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/0#3 date=1378043240]Lets just hope congress considers this with emotions aside.

If they consider it without emotions, then we're definitely going to strike.  Because based on our policy of intervention, the fact that the Syrian government just gassed a massive pile of civilians with Sarin gas pretty much compels us to act.  The only ereason we wouldn't is emotion--basically, that Iraq and Afghanistan have made us weary and skeptical of war as a solution for anything.  I believed that back then, and I believe it now.  I don't think war is ever a solution to anything.  However, you both voted for Romney... he would have been in there three months ago.  The fact that Obama is throwing this to the Congress to authorize is basically because he sees what you see... the people are tired of war.  And he's not going to send bombers without someone to pin it on.  But I'm pretty sure the Congress is going to authorize air strikes.


I don't agree. The emotional side to this is the fact that women and children were gassed and killed. The logical side is that what is done is done. We can't change the past. There is no threat to our country, fact. We are broke as hell, fact. We are still trying to end 2 other wars.

Who gives a damn if I voted for Romney? That has nothing to do with this discussion. Must you defend Obama at all cost, no matter what? You have no clue as to what Romney would do, your speculating about something that has nothing to do with the discussion.

If Obama knows we are tired of war, why entertain the idea of war at all? That doesn't make any sense. He should grow a pair and simply say, we ain't getting involved. Is it that hard? Hell, people would actually support that. We need a leader as president.

comes down to which emotions to set aside, doesn't it?

set aside anger and don't respond... or, set aside empathy and drop some ordinance on people.

I hope we don't use force because we will unavoidably wind up killing people who had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons - and that's not to say that we have some kind of right to blow up people who used chemical weapons anywhere in the world, either. it's such a ludicrously arrogant position we've worked ourselves into.

it would serve us better to carpet bomb Syria with MREs and basic medical supplies.

I don't think a Romney administration (or a mccain one) would have been that different... maybe a little worse on this sort of thing but not much. these days, it feels a lot like a one party system on most issues to me - and membership in the party isn't open to the public. strange days.

ironsheep — Sep 03, 2013comes down to which emotions to set aside, doesn't it?

set aside anger and don't respond... or, set aside empathy and drop some ordinance on people.

I hope we don't use force because we will unavoidably wind up killing people who had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons - and that's not to say that we have some kind of right to blow up people who used chemical weapons anywhere in the world, either. it's such a ludicrously arrogant position we've worked ourselves into.

it would serve us better to carpet bomb Syria with MREs and basic medical supplies.

I don't think a Romney administration (or a mccain one) would have been that different... maybe a little worse on this sort of thing but not much. these days, it feels a lot like a one party system on most issues to me - and membership in the party isn't open to the public. strange days.

Which emotion to set aside? If would be a emotional decision to attack Syria based on the circumstances, it would take logic and reason,  critical thinking..... to come to the conclusion that we should mind our fucking business. A decision based on emotion,  vs. logic,  are two totally different kind of decisions, imo.

When I found out my wife was fucking the neighbors husband, my first thought, instinct, was to find him and see how close I could get him to death without killing him, and hoping I messed up.  ;D That would have been a 100% emotional decision. However, I decided to check around with some friends, policemen, to see if or how much trouble and money it would cost me to beat a worthless shit hound ass for 2 or 3 hours. Then I ask myself what this would accomplish? I decided to step away. Logical decision 100%.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard many logical reason to attack Syria, at all.

Well, this I know for sure.  Romney would definitely not ask Congress for authorization to act.  Why? Because he's got to get re-elected in three years and, truth be told, it makes the president look wimpy and overly cautious.  He'd say "look, I'm tough,  I make my own decisions."  And we would have already bombed Syria.  Now, will we bomb Syria under Obama? Yeah, probably.  We'll do the same thing.  But getting Congress to sign off on it shows the difference that 5 brutal years in office, and the hellish shitstorm of wars we created under Bush, have left us with.  

I don't agree we don't have the money to do it... in fact, I know we've got piles of ordnance we could never use in 50 wars, and a huge mass of highly trained operators for that ordnance, just waiting to carpet bomb something, anything.

Do I agree?  Hell no.  I didn't support the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan.  Dude, I MARCHED against both wars.  Same with the first Iraq war.  This country gets involved in a lot of bullshit wars, and kills a lot of Arab civilians, and usually doesn't give a crap.  So don't tell me what I do or don't believe, or who I am defending.  I'm not defending Obama on this.  He's part of the machine, and he's got no choice, but at least for once I see a president RELUCTANT to bomb the shit out of the middle east.  I mean, have you seen how long he's been pushing out his red line, hemming and hawing?  He doesn't want to bomb Syria, that I believe.  But he will, because if he doesn't it's like telling Iran we don't back up our red lines, and we can't look weak to anyone, ever.

I've never believed in war as a solution to anything, and I've always thought it just caused more problems.  I've been consistent about that as long as I've had a political consciousness.   As far as I can tell, you all believed in war in the middle east right up until Obama got elected.  That's totally fine, but obfuscation doesn't work when I know what you've said in the past.  Craig, you were supported full on war with Iraq because you suspected the EXISTENCE of chemical weapons.  Now we've got proof of Syria USING them against its own people, and the president actually delays any action by insisting that Congress authorize it, and you call it "King Obama?"  I call bullshit on that.

He's King Obama because he only cares about himself.  He certainly doesn't act like a servant of the people and he only cares about himself and how things will look from a purely narcissistic point of view.

Why aren't other countries ticked off that Syria used chemical weapons on their own people?  That's the real question.

hook, I understand what you are saying - I was being pedantic... a fault, I admit. sorry for the diversion from the topic.

CraigBert — Sep 03, 2013He's King Obama because he only cares about himself.  He certainly doesn't act like a servant of the people and he only cares about himself and how things will look from a purely narcissistic point of view.

Why aren't other countries ticked off that Syria used chemical weapons on their own people?  That's the real question.

King Obama is bullshit, and it doesn't hold water.  That's nice political theater, but it's not "proof" that you tell me someone's not a servant of the people because he doesn't hold your views.  

As far as I can tell, other countries do seem to care that Syria gassed its own people.  Who would have thought it would be France beating the drum for war in Syria, and the US and Britian hemming and hawing?  

Bottom line, though, the US doesn't need anyone else to do it, do they?  The coalition of the willing for the Iraq war was all bullshit, anyway.  We used the shit out of 9/11 to get friggin Micronesia to jump on our bandwagon, but really, who do we need?  There's no one else out there who can do what we want to do anyway.  We've already got the drones and the pinpoint missile targeting and the most advanced airforce in the world, with our carriers already all over the gulf.  We're not planning a ground war, are we?  

What lawmakers see, and what governments see, is Rwanda all over again.  There are already some 2 million refugees from the Syrian conflict, and over 100,000 dead.  These are numbers we last saw in Rwanda in 94-95.  History did not look kindly on the complete lack of intervention in Rwanda.  That was probably the most horrific exercise in the world standing idly by in 50 years.  So now, we see Syria, which equals Rwanda in terms of humanitarian crisis, but, unlike Rwanda, this isn't disorganized gangs of machete-wielding thugs.  This is a highly militarized country, with a centralized government structure that has shown both the capacity and the willingness to gas its own people.  And that's not even the worst to me... there were points earlier in the conflict when the Syrian army massacred far more than the 1,400 people who died in this sarin attack.  I guess it's not as important if they die by conventional weapons, though...

Anyway, I don't believe in war as a solution, I think our military is ridiculous and huge and costs us way too much, and I think we should never have got involved in any of the wars we've been involved with since I've been following politics, including Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Lybia, etc. etc.  But at the same time, I think it's hypocritical to support those conflicts, and not support this one... this is as clear a case for intervention as you will find.  It's political football.  No one wants to do anything that supports Obama, and I think that's ridiculous.  I can almost guarantee that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will not vote for this.  But if the president was a Republican? I think we'd see a different tune from those folks.  

charger — Sep 03, 2013Well, this I know for sure.  Romney would definitely not ask Congress for authorization to act.  Why? Because he's got to get re-elected in three years and, truth be told, it makes the president look wimpy and overly cautious.  He'd say "look, I'm tough,  I make my own decisions."  And we would have already bombed Syria.  Now, will we bomb Syria under Obama? Yeah, probably.  We'll do the same thing.  But getting Congress to sign off on it shows the difference that 5 brutal years in office, and the hellish shitstorm of wars we created under Bush, have left us with.  

I don't agree we don't have the money to do it... in fact, I know we've got piles of ordnance we could never use in 50 wars, and a huge mass of highly trained operators for that ordnance, just waiting to carpet bomb something, anything.

Do I agree?  Hell no.  I didn't support the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan.  Dude, I MARCHED against both wars.  Same with the first Iraq war.  This country gets involved in a lot of bullshit wars, and kills a lot of Arab civilians, and usually doesn't give a crap.  So don't tell me what I do or don't believe, or who I am defending.  I'm not defending Obama on this.  He's part of the machine, and he's got no choice, but at least for once I see a president RELUCTANT to bomb the shit out of the middle east.  I mean, have you seen how long he's been pushing out his red line, hemming and hawing?  He doesn't want to bomb Syria, that I believe.  But he will, because if he doesn't it's like telling Iran we don't back up our red lines, and we can't look weak to anyone, ever.

I've never believed in war as a solution to anything, and I've always thought it just caused more problems.  I've been consistent about that as long as I've had a political consciousness.   As far as I can tell, you all believed in war in the middle east right up until Obama got elected.  That's totally fine, but obfuscation doesn't work when I know what you've said in the past.  Craig, you were supported full on war with Iraq because you suspected the EXISTENCE of chemical weapons.  Now we've got proof of Syria USING them against its own people, and the president actually delays any action by insisting that Congress authorize it, and you call it "King Obama?"  I call bullshit on that.

You can't use what I've "believed" and said about such belief against me now. Thats like saying I'm stupid for learning. My thoughts on a lot of stuff has changed tremendously over the last 5 years or so. I think Obama is too conservative for my taste. Not saying for the better... ;D

You see, at the start of all this I was a republican and wanted to kill some ones ass, emotional, but now, after the fact, one starts to see what a mistake it was. The middle east has been in a shit storm since Saddam got taken out. The logical thought was to consider what would happen before an attack, logical.

Like why bring up Romney? Diversion?? Doesn't matter what you think Romney would do. That doesn't make sense. I think George Washington would nuke Syria.  ;D ;D ;D Dude, your killing me here.  ;D ;D

Man, your defending him again. (Obama)  ;D ;D All praise to the King.  ;D ;D ;D

I see a President playing a game with this decision, not quite sure why there has to be a decision, and I don't like it. I think if he made a stand against this stupid move, Americans would back him by 90%. It would be great for his Approval Rating. ;)

ironsheep — Sep 03, 2013hook, I understand what you are saying - I was being pedantic... a fault, I admit. sorry for the diversion from the topic.

Do we ever stay on topic? Thats the fun part.  ;D ;D

Wasn't hard to find this picture of the useless waste of flesh.

Well Craig, arn't you the little racist of 2013.  ;D ;D

Racist?  No, as far as I'm concerned, we're all the same race.  The human race.  Anyone who believes they deserve special treatment because of their definition of their race is a racist in my opinion.

Hookbender — Sep 03, 2013[quote author=charger link=1377977579/0#11 date=1378241975]Well, this I know for sure.  Romney would definitely not ask Congress for authorization to act.  Why? Because he's got to get re-elected in three years and, truth be told, it makes the president look wimpy and overly cautious.  He'd say "look, I'm tough,  I make my own decisions."  And we would have already bombed Syria.  Now, will we bomb Syria under Obama? Yeah, probably.  We'll do the same thing.  But getting Congress to sign off on it shows the difference that 5 brutal years in office, and the hellish shitstorm of wars we created under Bush, have left us with.  

I don't agree we don't have the money to do it... in fact, I know we've got piles of ordnance we could never use in 50 wars, and a huge mass of highly trained operators for that ordnance, just waiting to carpet bomb something, anything.

Do I agree?  Hell no.  I didn't support the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan.  Dude, I MARCHED against both wars.  Same with the first Iraq war.  This country gets involved in a lot of bullshit wars, and kills a lot of Arab civilians, and usually doesn't give a crap.  So don't tell me what I do or don't believe, or who I am defending.  I'm not defending Obama on this.  He's part of the machine, and he's got no choice, but at least for once I see a president RELUCTANT to bomb the shit out of the middle east.  I mean, have you seen how long he's been pushing out his red line, hemming and hawing?  He doesn't want to bomb Syria, that I believe.  But he will, because if he doesn't it's like telling Iran we don't back up our red lines, and we can't look weak to anyone, ever.

I've never believed in war as a solution to anything, and I've always thought it just caused more problems.  I've been consistent about that as long as I've had a political consciousness.   As far as I can tell, you all believed in war in the middle east right up until Obama got elected.  That's totally fine, but obfuscation doesn't work when I know what you've said in the past.  Craig, you were supported full on war with Iraq because you suspected the EXISTENCE of chemical weapons.  Now we've got proof of Syria USING them against its own people, and the president actually delays any action by insisting that Congress authorize it, and you call it "King Obama?"  I call bullshit on that.

You can't use what I've "believed" and said about such belief against me now. Thats like saying I'm stupid for learning. My thoughts on a lot of stuff has changed tremendously over the last 5 years or so. I think Obama is too conservative for my taste. Not saying for the better... ;D

You see, at the start of all this I was a republican and wanted to kill some ones ass, emotional, but now, after the fact, one starts to see what a mistake it was. The middle east has been in a shit storm since Saddam got taken out. The logical thought was to consider what would happen before an attack, logical.

Like why bring up Romney? Diversion?? Doesn't matter what you think Romney would do. That doesn't make sense. I think George Washington would nuke Syria.  ;D ;D ;D Dude, your killing me here.  ;D ;D

Man, your defending him again. (Obama)  ;D ;D All praise to the King.  ;D ;D ;D

I see a President playing a game with this decision, not quite sure why there has to be a decision, and I don't like it. I think if he made a stand against this stupid move, Americans would back him by 90%. It would be great for his Approval Rating. ;)




Ahh, interesting.  Your thoughts on a lot have really changed over the last 5 years

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I think if America does go ahead and bombs the fuck out of syria there will be two losers...syria of course longterm USA.  You are setting yourselves up for decades of retaliation by terrorist groups that will infiltrate your homeland and be planting bombs here there and everywhere creating a climate of fear for the everyday person going about there daily business.  You cannot win against the middle eastern mind-set.  It's a bit like a mad dog with a bone, no matter how many times you kick the fucker and beat him to make him let go he will come back at you again and again with no feeling of remorse or compassion or discrimination. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back in !

I remember back in the early 70's when the Irish problem was at it's peak here.  I was at school then and my dad worked at the Foreign office in London.  I was forever wondering if today would be the day that he wouldn't be coming home because of the terrorist bombs that were an almost daily occurrence in London at that time.   You certainly don't want to get into that situation, you just can't turn it off.

just to get this on the record beforehand...

if congress gives the ok and Obama then decides to pass on a strike... that would be epic.

Jon — Sep 04, 2013I think if America does go ahead and bombs the fuck out of syria there will be two losers...syria of course longterm USA.  You are setting yourselves up for decades of retaliation by terrorist groups that will infiltrate your homeland and be planting bombs here there and everywhere creating a climate of fear for the everyday person going about there daily business.  You cannot win against the middle eastern mind-set.  It's a bit like a mad dog with a bone, no matter how many times you kick the fucker and beat him to make him let go he will come back at you again and again with no feeling of remorse or compassion or discrimination. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back in !

I remember back in the early 70's when the Irish problem was at it's peak here.  I was at school then and my dad worked at the Foreign office in London.  I was forever wondering if today would be the day that he wouldn't be coming home because of the terrorist bombs that were an almost daily occurrence in London at that time.   You certainly don't want to get into that situation, you just can't turn it off.

It's a little late for that.  First, they already struck... several times, both here and overseas... Second, I'd like to see a cogent argument as to why Syria is any more or less a fertile breeding ground for US hatred than Iraq (destroyed twice over), Afghanistan (bombed to rubble once), Libya (carpet-bombed), Pakistan (invaded by covert ops troops and subject to constant drone strikes), the occupied territories (cut off and condemned by US, occupier funded by the US), Iran (embargoed to the point where their currency is worthless)...

ironsheep — Sep 04, 2013just to get this on the record beforehand...

if congress gives the ok and Obama then decides to pass on a strike... that would be epic.

Or, is he deliberately trying to not make the case to go into Syria?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/04/wonkbook-the-obama-administrations-brilliant-strategy-to-keep-us-out-of-syria/

Privately, Hill aides joke that everything is going exactly to President Obama’s plan. It’s just that that plan is to stay far, far away from Syria.

well, keep hope alive... but sounds a bit too clever to me. but what do I know?

at this point, he's got so many people declared for war... it'd be really hard (like, superhuman hard) to pull back. he'd secure a place in profiles in courage if he does, though!

I think it's all bullshit.

"Hillary Clinton backs Syria strike. “Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton backs President Obama’s call for Congress to authorize military action against Syria, a Clinton adviser said Tuesday. “Clinton supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons,” the adviser said in a statement.” Dan Balz in The Washington Post."

Seems everyone that supports bombing Syria are purely focused on the chemical weapon thing. Again, a emotional lead unthought out approach. 0 logic to be found from any supporter. Damn shame.

I'd like to bomb Hilary.

The problem with logic is that it can be used to come up with many outcomes depending on how it's used.  It's not a right or a wrong, it's a string of thoughts.  

Was gassing people against long held world agreed upon "norms" emotional or logical?

Jon — Sep 04, 2013I think if America does go ahead and bombs the fuck out of syria there will be two losers...syria of course longterm USA.  You are setting yourselves up for decades of retaliation by terrorist groups that will infiltrate your homeland and be planting bombs here there and everywhere creating a climate of fear for the everyday person going about there daily business.  You cannot win against the middle eastern mind-set.  It's a bit like a mad dog with a bone, no matter how many times you kick the fucker and beat him to make him let go he will come back at you again and again with no feeling of remorse or compassion or discrimination. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back in !

I remember back in the early 70's when the Irish problem was at it's peak here.  I was at school then and my dad worked at the Foreign office in London.  I was forever wondering if today would be the day that he wouldn't be coming home because of the terrorist bombs that were an almost daily occurrence in London at that time.   You certainly don't want to get into that situation, you just can't turn it off.

Unfortunately, it seems like there will be more booms coming here and in yer zone too.  It may not just be from one group either.  Booming yerself and/or others may be a new trend!  Who am I kidding, nothing new under the sun...  "Boom Fame" - the nu graffiti "Street Art"...

What did you think about Libya?

BINGEWOOD — Sep 05, 2013The problem with logic is that it can be used to come up with many outcomes depending on how it's used.  It's not a right or a wrong, it's a string of thoughts.  

Was gassing people against long held world agreed upon "norms" emotional or logical?

Maybe a string of thoughts based on facts, not feelings???? That sounds better, doesn't it? Acts taken based solely on emotion, rarely turn out very well. 50% of marriages fail, and about, I guess, 49% of those decisions to mary were based on emotion. On the other hand, the 50% that last, were probably based on emotion as well.  ;D So if you make a decision based on emotion, based on the example of marriages, you start off with at least a 50% chance of making a bad decision.  ;D

Emotional. 100%.

As I get older I begin to wonder why death by cruise missle is apparently OK when death by toxic chemical isn't...  :-?

Because one is easy and cheap.

We (most governments in the world) have agreed that we won't kill with gas, we will kill slowly.  There was a time when we would line up to shoot each other.  Rules of war...  I don't exactly get them either but there is a lot more than that going on with Syria.  

It is fun watching who takes which side on this one, in the media/political whirled.  

"Fun n' games, fun n' games, everyone switching sides..."

Hookbender — Sep 05, 2013[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1377977579/25#28 date=1378340560]The problem with logic is that it can be used to come up with many outcomes depending on how it's used.  It's not a right or a wrong, it's a string of thoughts.  

Was gassing people against long held world agreed upon "norms" emotional or logical?

Maybe a string of thoughts based on facts, not feelings???? That sounds better, doesn't it? Acts taken based solely on emotion, rarely turn out very well. 50% of marriages fail, and about, I guess, 49% of those decisions to mary were based on emotion. On the other hand, the 50% that last, were probably based on emotion as well.  ;D So if you make a decision based on emotion, based on the example of marriages, you start off with at least a 50% chance of making a bad decision.  ;D

Emotional. 100%.

Is it logical or emotional when someone gets married because they have unintentionally created another human through fucking?  Both?

How 'bout when he/she doesn't get married in that situation?  Both, again?

hook, would you find it to be a reasonable translation on my part if I understood you to mean "intuition" when you say "emotion"? I'd be using "intuition" in the sense that it's a thoughtless, knee-jerk or instinctive response or thought based on a feeling... as opposed to "reason" (which I'm translating from your "logic") which would be the thought through, considered response or opinion that took some effort and mental focus.

I don't think it's possible to do anything without an emotion of some kind and when you refer to things taking place "without emotions"... I'm a little perplexed. I do think it is possible to substitute reason for intuition, though, or at least to think that one is doing so... and I'm thinking this substitution translates to "logic over emotion" as you're using it. correct?

I ask these things because I don't want to disagree with you outright if I'm just using different words to say the same thing... heh.

(removed an extra "mean"... wtf)

You're just two mean Ironsheep!  ;D

Our entire approach to the middle east is based on a logical fallacy.  That logical fallacy is, "Everyone should have American-style democracy."  If we approach the world from that position--and we have done that for 60+ years--then our foreign policy is bound to be catastrophic.  Right now Obama's stuck between a hard place and a possibly harder place.  Everyone hates Assad, who is an anti-democratic thug, and we all want the "people" to get their voice.  Clearly, now, they don't have a voice in Syria.  

However, the "people" are shaping up to be a collection of insane radicalized extremists.  Where are the moderates in Syria?  Well, I guess it's entirely possible that moderates aren't the kind of people who wage armed insurgencies against their government.  Look at the people collecting arsenals and preparing to overthrow the government in the US--also not moderates.  Insurgency favors extremism.

The President would do well to institute a "fireside chat" type of program where he sits down and explains to the people that American-style democracy is good for America, and America alone.  (And even here it seems to be an abject failure lately, for the same reasons--extremism--but that's a separate point).  And that maybe, just maybe, the middle east needs dictators who torture their people, throw them in jail without trial, murder them at will, hold farcical elections, rob the people of every cent possible, build chemical and nuclear weapons for their fight against Israel/the West, etc.  Maybe in that scenario we also need to say that Israel is going to have to figure it out on their own... there's just no way we can defend them against all of the vitriolic nations aligning their capabilities against them.

How do you think that would go over?

It's not pretty.  If we don't do something, do we tacitly approve?

charger — Sep 05, 2013Our entire approach to the middle east is based on a logical fallacy.  That logical fallacy is, "Everyone should have American-style democracy."  If we approach the world from that position--and we have done that for 60+ years--then our foreign policy is bound to be catastrophic.  Right now Obama's stuck between a hard place and a possibly harder place.  Everyone hates Assad, who is an anti-democratic thug, and we all want the "people" to get their voice.  Clearly, now, they don't have a voice in Syria.  

However, the "people" are shaping up to be a collection of insane radicalized extremists.  Where are the moderates in Syria?  Well, I guess it's entirely possible that moderates aren't the kind of people who wage armed insurgencies against their government.  Look at the people collecting arsenals and preparing to overthrow the government in the US--also not moderates.  Insurgency favors extremism.

The President would do well to institute a "fireside chat" type of program where he sits down and explains to the people that American-style democracy is good for America, and America alone.  (And even here it seems to be an abject failure lately, for the same reasons--extremism--but that's a separate point).  And that maybe, just maybe, the middle east needs dictators who torture their people, throw them in jail without trial, murder them at will, hold farcical elections, rob the people of every cent possible, build chemical and nuclear weapons for their fight against Israel/the West, etc.  Maybe in that scenario we also need to say that Israel is going to have to figure it out on their own... there's just no way we can defend them against all of the vitriolic nations aligning their capabilities against them.

How do you think that would go over?

I think the fallacy might be that instant Democracy equals instant decent outcomes.  It takes time and is rough and bumpy with the keepers of the big boom in the area holding most of the cards.  I thought our policy has been to try to deal with the local dictator with the best deal for "us".  

So many crazee forces at play in the area between religious, political and geopolitical forces...

BINGEWOOD — Sep 05, 2013http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

Interesting.

That's a pretty good overview.

Yep. I agree. I think we should fire at least 1000 missile's at Syria. That will teach them that we can kill their people more effectively. Perfect. Lets help the dude out. Fire 2000 missile's. That will teach them.

Is that not the same mentality he has? Do something I don't like and I'll gas your ass. Do something I don't like and I'll try to scare you by killing more innocent women and children, plus your military people, and fuck up your country beyond belief.

I think this is a huge mistake.

How can you enter a war without the will to win..... and is their anything to win at all?

We bomb the shit out of them and we, at that moment, are at war with Syria. Plain and simple. Another war. Anyone that believes we would bomb them, in a slap on the hand type fashion, and step away..... the end. Your kidding yourselves. Problem is their are supporters of Obama in Congress, and war lovers in congress.... (republicans) Thats a recipe for disaster my friends.

Hookbender — Sep 06, 2013
I think this is a huge mistake.

Killing others?  Ya, that's generally believed to be a huge mistake.  ;)

Hookbender — Sep 06, 2013Yep. I agree. I think we should fire at least 1000 missile's at Syria. That will teach them that we can kill their people more effectively. Perfect. Lets help the dude out. Fire 2000 missile's. That will teach them.

Is that not the same mentality he has? Do something I don't like and I'll gas your ass. Do something I don't like and I'll try to scare you by killing more innocent women and children, plus your military people, and fuck up your country beyond belief.

I think this is a huge mistake.

How can you enter a war without the will to win..... and is their anything to win at all?

We bomb the shit out of them and we, at that moment, are at war with Syria. Plain and simple. Another war. Anyone that believes we would bomb them, in a slap on the hand type fashion, and step away..... the end. Your kidding yourselves. Problem is their are supporters of Obama in Congress, and war lovers in congress.... (republicans) Thats a recipe for disaster my friends.

Sheeeeit, Hook... You gunna do some marching?  With Charlie Rangel and the hippies?

Or maybe at a Paul(s) rally...

I would rather march against this war with hippies than stick my head in the sand and ignore the stupidity of it. At some point, our government should be help responsible for their actions.

Hookbender — Sep 06, 2013I would rather march against this war with hippies than stick my head in the sand and ignore the stupidity of it. At some point, our government should be help responsible for their actions.

And that point was in 2003. Yet not only did the American people support that war, some 66% of people, but they REELECTED Bush.  And you were one of them.  At some point our government needs to be held accountable for its actions?  How about, "At some point the guy I didn't vote for needs to be held accountable for actions that I fully would have supported if he was a guy I voted for."


Where the hell was this when we invaded Iraq? We could have used a little support then.  Syria has used chemical weapons in the last month!  Are they supposed to be held accountable for their actions?  Saddam hadn't used them in almost ten years when we invaded Iraq--yet we held him accountable for our terrible lack of intel and our lack of faith in the UN weapons inspectors.  

Republicans, the anti-war hippie party.  Great stuff!  Now, vote to defund the military, redistribute some cash to the poor, increase school funding, funding for the arts, and jack up the taxes on the rich, and you'll have something...  Obama's best move would be to start pushing against all his interests... the Pubs would have no choice but to switch sides because of their reflexive hatred.

charger — Sep 06, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/25#45 date=1378476668]I would rather march against this war with hippies than stick my head in the sand and ignore the stupidity of it. At some point, our government should be help responsible for their actions.

And that point was in 2003. Yet not only did the American people support that war, some 66% of people, but they REELECTED Bush.  And you were one of them.  At some point our government needs to be held accountable for its actions?  How about, "At some point the guy I didn't vote for needs to be held accountable for actions that I fully would have supported if he was a guy I voted for."


Where the hell was this when we invaded Iraq? We could have used a little support then.  Syria has used chemical weapons in the last month!  Are they supposed to be held accountable for their actions?  Saddam hadn't used them in almost ten years when we invaded Iraq--yet we held him accountable for our terrible lack of intel and our lack of faith in the UN weapons inspectors.  

Republicans, the anti-war hippie party.  Great stuff!  Now, vote to defund the military, redistribute some cash to the poor, increase school funding, funding for the arts, and jack up the taxes on the rich, and you'll have something...  Obama's best move would be to start pushing against all his interests... the Pubs would have no choice but to switch sides because of their reflexive hatred.

2003, and 2013. The American people were lied too about wmds, and I'm one of those American people. If we did find WMD's, I wouldn't be bitching, now would I? I pretty much think, for example, that if the truth would have been available, like Bush was really pissed because Hussein tried to kill his DAD, that wouldn't have been a good enough reason for me to be for the war.

Are they suppose to be held accountable by whom? Americas military? America? People kill people over there. We can't stop it. We can't scare killing away from that part of the country. We only have the right to bomb another country if we are really threatened or attacked by another country, something like the Osama deal. Maybe to stop a insane person from having WMDs, maybe.

I don't want all that other stuff, but I would like more money for education. I feel educating the poor is at least as important than a few more bucks on the food stamp card. To invest in helping the poor  would seem to be the right attitude. To Invest in these people. Education would guarantee, almost, a much better return on your investment.

Hookbender — Sep 07, 2013[quote author=charger link=1377977579/25#46 date=1378489743][quote author=Hookbender link=1377977579/25#45 date=1378476668]I would rather march against this war with hippies than stick my head in the sand and ignore the stupidity of it. At some point, our government should be help responsible for their actions.

And that point was in 2003. Yet not only did the American people support that war, some 66% of people, but they REELECTED Bush.  And you were one of them.  At some point our government needs to be held accountable for its actions?  How about, "At some point the guy I didn't vote for needs to be held accountable for actions that I fully would have supported if he was a guy I voted for."


Where the hell was this when we invaded Iraq? We could have used a little support then.  Syria has used chemical weapons in the last month!  Are they supposed to be held accountable for their actions?  Saddam hadn't used them in almost ten years when we invaded Iraq--yet we held him accountable for our terrible lack of intel and our lack of faith in the UN weapons inspectors.  

Republicans, the anti-war hippie party.  Great stuff!  Now, vote to defund the military, redistribute some cash to the poor, increase school funding, funding for the arts, and jack up the taxes on the rich, and you'll have something...  Obama's best move would be to start pushing against all his interests... the Pubs would have no choice but to switch sides because of their reflexive hatred.

2003, and 2013. The American people were lied too about wmds, and I'm one of those American people. If we did find WMD's, I wouldn't be bitching, now would I? I pretty much think, for example, that if the truth would have been available, like Bush was really pissed because Hussein tried to kill his DAD, that wouldn't have been a good enough reason for me to be for the war.

Are they suppose to be held accountable by whom? Americas military? America? People kill people over there. We can't stop it. We can't scare killing away from that part of the country. We only have the right to bomb another country if we are really threatened or attacked by another country, something like the Osama deal. Maybe to stop a insane person from having WMDs, maybe.



So, you have a situation here where the arguably insane, remarkably unpopular leader of a country in the middle of a bloody civil was not only has WMDs, but is using them actively, right now, to massacre his people.  You have verifiable proof of this, both on YouTube, in eyewitness accounts, and with weapons inspectors who have tested clothing, hair, and tissue from the dead.  What's your reaction to that?  What is it about this current WMD that is not the equivalent to you of the previous WMD?

By the way, the more I look at this, the more I think it was actually kind of a brilliant move.  That Obama really doesn't want to bomb Syria, and he knows that Congress can't pass a resolution to scratch their own fucking balls, so he said, "I really think we need to do this, so I'm going to ask Congress to support me."  I actually heard a Congressman today say "We as a Congress can hardly figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time, and the president throws this decision to us?"

Clearly, the Syrian people are not our direct interests.  As long as he doesn't attack a US base, or ally, I think Assad can just keep on lobbing his Sarin gas missiles at Syrian opposition suburbs, once he sees we're not gonna be the police.  Truth is, it will probably end the civil war faster.  There's nothing as terrifying as biological or chemical warfare; that stuff seeps into the collective consciousness, and soon enough the Syrian opposition will lose hope and the will to resist.  

"Obama really doesn't want to bomb Syria, and he knows that Congress can't pass a resolution to scratch their own fucking balls, so he said, "I really think we need to do this, so I'm going to ask Congress to support me."  I actually heard a Congressman today say "We as a Congress can hardly figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time, and the president throws this decision to us?"

Shine a world light on the area for a drawn out period, less chance of further gas attacks whether we boom or not...  We'll see what happens.  

So many strange bedfellows lately, Hanity and Putin and Paul(s)... OH MY!!!