no devils left in hell

[erynthered]

John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have already called for arming Syria's rebels, in statements last month from the U.S. Senate where they serve. But they repeated their demand in more dramatic fashion Tuesday — from a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey and with violence unabated, as the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad disregarded the UN plan that was to have silenced the Syrian Army's guns Tuesday morning.

 

The two senators joined a growing international chorus of voices finding that the unimplemented plan, brokered by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is simply allowing the Assad regime to continue its oppression.

 

 

 

 

Nice cut and paste, again.

 

[birdog1960]

And that would prolong the conflict and kill and maim a lot more people. If the goal is regime change, then use your power to effect it ASAP.

the ends don't justify the means, imho. it's their fight, not ours. lets just help to make it a more fair one. isn't what we've seen in syria, libya and egypt exactly what the neocons desired and anticipated from emancipating iraq? the least we could do is to give those emboldened by our actions a chance to fight for what we precipitated.

[DC Tom]

the ends don't justify the means, imho. it's their fight, not ours. lets just help to make it a more fair one. isn't what we've seen in syria, libya and egypt exactly what the neocons desired and anticipated from emancipating iraq? the least we could do is to give those emboldened by our actions a chance to fight for what we precipitated.

 

So you're justifying an intervention in a foreign country with an unjustified intervention in a foreign country?

[GG]

the ends don't justify the means, imho. it's their fight, not ours. lets just help to make it a more fair one. isn't what we've seen in syria, libya and egypt exactly what the neocons desired and anticipated from emancipating iraq? the least we could do is to give those emboldened by our actions a chance to fight for what we precipitated.

 

Are you again trying to make my argument for me? You're either for regime change or you're not. If you formally state that Assad must go, then you need to follow up with action. Otherwise stay fully out of the picture and let Syrians handle it like they usually handle things - by killing 10,000's of the rebels. To me there's not much of an in between in these cases.

[DC Tom]

Are you again trying to make my argument for me? You're either for regime change or you're not. If you formally state that Assad must go, then you need to follow up with action. Otherwise stay fully out of the picture and let Syrians handle it like they usually handle things - by killing 10,000's of the rebels. To me there's not much of an in between in these cases.

 

There's plenty of gray area. You could...I don't know, maybe issue a strongly worded scolding, then sit back and "lead" while the French do everything. Or maybe just accuse Assad of "genocide-like" activities, then go play with yourself for a while.

[birdog1960]

There's plenty of gray area. You could...I don't know, maybe issue a strongly worded scolding, then sit back and "lead" while the French do everything. Or maybe just accuse Assad of "genocide-like" activities, then go play with yourself for a while.

or you could supply them arms. we don't have any problem supplying israel arms, do we?

[/dev/null]

I've noticed that liberals generally hate any kind of foreign intervention if a Republican is President but are all for any and all intervention if a Democrat is in office.

 

There's a big difference between a Republican President intervenes and a Democratic President

 

When a Republican intervenes, he is expanding the American Empire and forcing American culture onto a foreign culture

 

When a Democrat intervenes, he is helping an oppressed people fight for the same freedoms that Americans and enjoy while at the same time making America more secure and promoting free trade

[DC Tom]

or you could supply them arms. we don't have any problem supplying israel arms, do we?

 

Ah. I'm sorry, my bad. I thought you wanted to end the fighting. Turns out you just want to make it fair, no matter how many people it kills.

[GG]

Ah. I'm sorry, my bad. I thought you wanted to end the fighting. Turns out you just want to make it fair, no matter how many people it kills.

 

Brown people don't count as people, remember?

[Jauronimo]

If we are to intervene in Syria, by that logic aren't we also obligated to take action in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Somalia and probably a dozen other regional conflicts I'm forgetting? And if that holds true then wouldn't it be the responsibility of the United States to police the whole world (as long as those chicken hawk republicans aren't running the show of course)? And if directly supplying the Syrian rebels escalates into conflict with their largest ally, Iran, shouldn't we declare war on the Iranis?

 

There is nothing more noble than the selective outrage for the cause du jour. How long until Matt Damon starts leading the charge for regime change in Syria?

[birdog1960]

Ah. I'm sorry, my bad. I thought you wanted to end the fighting. Turns out you just want to make it fair, no matter how many people it kills.

i'm reminded of qoutes i read from concentration camp survivors who prayed that the allies would bomb the camps knowing they were likely to be killed in such an attack. i suspect there are many syrians that feel the same way.

[DC Tom]

i'm reminded of qoutes i read from concentration camp survivors who prayed that the allies would bomb the camps knowing they were likely to be killed in such an attack. i suspect there are many syrians that feel the same way.

 

So your solution is to arm the insurgents, then help the government by bombing the **** out of them?

[meazza]

Ah. I'm sorry, my bad. I thought you wanted to end the fighting. Turns out you just want to make it fair, no matter how many people it kills.

 

A bit like BHO's tax policy

[OCinBuffalo]

unfettered greed in action. what/who will stop this evil bastard and his enablers?

Yeah...that and China, Russia, and Iran. As if some Syrian "tycoon" has anywhere near the effect that these 3 countries do on what is happening is Syria. Will you admit that they are enablers? How about evil?

how bout arming the insurgents to the level of equivalence? sure, there are problems with this...are they going to be better off with them then the current regime? will they turn on us? dunno, but don't we westerners proclaim our love and support for democracy very loudly and publicly? hasn't this reasoning been recently used by American leaders (especially conservatives) to justify more costly interventions? this seems a measured response to an ongoing massacre. they're laying landmines meant for refugees fleeing the country and shooting into turkish refugee camps. didn't foreign powers help arm our insurgents in our revolution?

What about Europe? I thought they were so wise, and forward thinking, and ahead of the curve on everything. Why can't they do something? They're right there. The EU has 500 million people and plenty of resources. So, what are they waiting for? Aren't they more "moral and compassionate" than we are?

 

What about the UN? I thought they were so wise, and fair, that we should allow their rulings supersede our Constitution, and accept whatever treaties the UN passes without Senate approval. Why can't they do something? Or....are they mostly just a bunch of corrupt, dictatorial clowns as well, who are afraid that if they take on Assad, that they will be next?

 

Come now briddog? All you clowns have demanded for years that the US be subject to the rest of the world's will when it comes to the use of OUR military that WE pay for and THEY don't. Why aren't they ordering us to go in and attack? Where is the courage of their convictions? Where are yours?

 

For years you have been telling us that Europe is better than us, because they don't spend on military and spend on entitlement. Well, if their approach is so superior, then why can't Germany go in and take out Assad? After all they have socialized medicine. Why isn't England and France doing something in Darfur? Why doesn't Canada send in their military? After all, they were supposed to be able to "treat the people of Afghanistan with more respect" than us, so why should we assume they won't do the same in Syria?.... Clowns.

 

Who's going to produce and pay for the weapons you want delivered to the rebels? Holland? Sweden? Denmark? Spain? Get serious. IF anything happens at all, it's going to end up as a line item on our Defense Budget, isn't it? But aren't we supposed to be cutting that budget?

 

Let's just come out and say it: The rest of the world needs us to do the killing. As unsettling as it is, killing must be done in these situations, and they know it. But, their insecurities about being unable/unwilling to do it themselves means that they lash out at us. Some Americans, and MOST Canadians, are dumb enough to buy into that....as is on display here.

 

Growing up, and seeing the world as it really is...it's a B word, isn't it birdog? There's hope for you. But it starts with the understanding that if you want to stop injustice, the rest of the world can't and won't do schit about it without us. No. You have to come see us about that.

Edited April 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Yeah...that and China, Russia, and Iran. As if some Syrian "tycoon" has anywhere near the effect that these 3 countries do on what is happening is Syria. Will you admit that they are enablers? How about evil?

 

What about Europe? I thought they were so wise, and forward thinking, and ahead of the curve on everything. Why can't they do something? They're right there. The EU has 500 million people and plenty of resources. So, what are they waiting for? Aren't they more "moral and compassionate" than we are?

 

What about the UN? I thought they were so wise, and fair, that we should allow their rulings supersede our Constitution, and accept whatever treaties the UN passes without Senate approval. Why can't they do something? Or....are they mostly just a bunch of corrupt, dictatorial clowns as well, who are afraid that if they take on Assad, that they will be next?

 

Come now briddog? All you clowns have demanded for years that the US be subject to the rest of the world's will when it comes to the use of OUR military that WE pay for and THEY don't. Why aren't they ordering us to go in and attack? Where is the courage of their convictions? Where are yours?

 

For years you have been telling us that Europe is better than us, because they don't spend on military and spend on entitlement. Well, if their approach is so superior, then why can't Germany go in and take out Assad? After all they have socialized medicine. Why isn't England and France doing something in Darfur? Why doesn't Canada send in their military? After all, they were supposed to be able to "treat the people of Afghanistan with more respect" than us, so why should we assume they won't do the same in Syria?.... Clowns.

 

Who's going to produce and pay for the weapons you want delivered to the rebels? Holland? Sweden? Denmark? Spain? Get serious. IF anything happens at all, it's going to end up as a line item on our Defense Budget, isn't it? But aren't we supposed to be cutting that budget?

 

Let's just come out and say it: The rest of the world needs us to do the killing. As unsettling as it is, killing must be done in these situations, and they know it. But, their insecurities about being unable/unwilling to do it themselves means that they lash out at us. Some Americans, and MOST Canadians, are dumb enough to buy into that....as is on display here.

 

Growing up, and seeing the world as it really is...it's a B word, isn't it birdog? There's hope for you. But it starts with the understanding that if you want to stop injustice, the rest of the world can't and won't do schit about it without us. No. You have to come see us about that.

 

brevity aint your strong suit is it? if you read as many words in the article that i linked as words that you wrote, you would have read about russia being an enabler (my word) and their motivations for doing so. guess what? much of it is economic, ie greed.

 

from a purely machiavellian perspective, we or the europeans or anyone else could arm the rebels to the point of winning and demand payment after the overthrow of assad from the spoils they reap. still don't understand why this wasn't done in iraq or maybe it was but to big oil and not the US govt? dunno and doubt we ever will. so what's stopping everyone from flooding the insurgents with arms. my bet is economic threats to those who do from china and russia which harkens back to my original premise: greed is the root of assad's continued strangle hold on the syrians. the worlds balance sheet doesn't favor the syrian people.

 

as far as the un, it's been proven ineffectual repeatedly. no argument here. i really can't justify it's continued existence. maybe it's accomplished things that we're unaware of. that would be the only defense for its continuation.

[....lybob]

brevity aint your strong suit is it? if you read as many words in the article that i linked as words that you wrote, you would have read about russia being an enabler (my word) and their motivations for doing so. guess what? much of it is economic, ie greed.

 

from a purely machiavellian perspective, we or the europeans or anyone else could arm the rebels to the point of winning and demand payment after the overthrow of assad from the spoils they reap. still don't understand why this wasn't done in iraq or maybe it was but to big oil and not the US govt? dunno and doubt we ever will. so what's stopping everyone from flooding the insurgents with arms. my bet is economic threats to those who do from china and russia which harkens back to my original premise: greed is the root of assad's continued strangle hold on the syrians. the worlds balance sheet doesn't favor the syrian people.

 

as far as the un, it's been proven ineffectual repeatedly. no argument here. i really can't justify it's continued existence. maybe it's accomplished things that we're unaware of. that would be the only defense for its continuation.

Here's the thing Birdog Libya the last place they interfered with is still a mess- infrastructure is still !@#$ed up, militias are fighting for territory or just looting or settling old scores , there is no central authority, and the portion of the country with oil wants to form it's own separate government which might lead to civil war- most of these conflicts aren't as simple as an united oppressed population rising up against it's tyrannical leaders- there are ethnic fractions and foreign intrigue- and at the end there is little guarantee of a lawful democratic government taking over- military juntas, theocratic government, or just a oligarchic regime from a different ethnic group are all more likely - in short I worry about any involvement by our government which to me has shown little competence in understanding the players, motivations, culture, or probable outcomes of actions- the admonishment "first do no harm" comes to mind even if it is not really part of the Hippocratic Oath.

[3rdnlng]

brevity aint your strong suit is it? if you read as many words in the article that i linked as words that you wrote, you would have read about russia being an enabler (my word) and their motivations for doing so. guess what? much of it is economic, ie greed.

 

from a purely machiavellian perspective, we or the europeans or anyone else could arm the rebels to the point of winning and demand payment after the overthrow of assad from the spoils they reap. still don't understand why this wasn't done in iraq or maybe it was but to big oil and not the US govt? dunno and doubt we ever will. so what's stopping everyone from flooding the insurgents with arms. my bet is economic threats to those who do from china and russia which harkens back to my original premise: greed is the root of assad's continued strangle hold on the syrians. the worlds balance sheet doesn't favor the syrian people.

 

as far as the un, it's been proven ineffectual repeatedly. no argument here. i really can't justify it's continued existence. maybe it's accomplished things that we're unaware of. that would be the only defense for its continuation.

 

 

Where do you come up with schit like this? Maybe Iraq reimbursed "big oil" for the US spending money for their benefit?

That's why guys like you have no credibility.

[birdog1960]

Here's the thing Birdog Libya the last place they interfered with is still a mess- infrastructure is still !@#$ed up, militias are fighting for territory or just looting or settling old scores , there is no central authority, and the portion of the country with oil wants to form it's own separate government which might lead to civil war- most of these conflicts aren't as simple as an united oppressed population rising up against it's tyrannical leaders- there are ethnic fractions and foreign intrigue- and at the end there is little guarantee of a lawful democratic government taking over- military juntas, theocratic government, or just a oligarchic regime from a different ethnic group are all more likely - in short I worry about any involvement by our government which to me has shown little competence in understanding the players, motivations, culture, or probable outcomes of actions- the admonishment "first do no harm" comes to mind even if it is not really part of the Hippocratic Oath.

do no harm is the premier guiding principle in medicine, or at least should be. you make good points.

 

but in the middle of all this middle east upheaval, rumsfeld said "democracy is messy". and it is. if we really believe it to be the best system then we should help it play out. and it's not like all this started spontaneously without a spark. this, to a large extent, was the desired outcome of the iraqi war. i would think that affords the us some culpability and responsibility to see the process through.

Edited April 11, 2012 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

brevity aint your strong suit is it? if you read as many words in the article that i linked as words that you wrote, you would have read about russia being an enabler (my word) and their motivations for doing so. guess what? much of it is economic, ie greed.

 

from a purely machiavellian perspective, we or the europeans or anyone else could arm the rebels to the point of winning and demand payment after the overthrow of assad from the spoils they reap. still don't understand why this wasn't done in iraq or maybe it was but to big oil and not the US govt? dunno and doubt we ever will. so what's stopping everyone from flooding the insurgents with arms. my bet is economic threats to those who do from china and russia which harkens back to my original premise: greed is the root of assad's continued strangle hold on the syrians. the worlds balance sheet doesn't favor the syrian people.

 

as far as the un, it's been proven ineffectual repeatedly. no argument here. i really can't justify it's continued existence. maybe it's accomplished things that we're unaware of. that would be the only defense for its continuation.

Difficult to be brief when you have so much to learn. First, does Fast and Furious sound familiar to you? Think.

 

I see you have given up on the "Germany will take care of this because they are more 'moral and compassionate'" plan. So there is hope for you, huh?

 

Anyway, let's assume your plan, and we pump more weapons in. Then what? China, Russia, and Iran will reciprocate. Escalation. Then, we go from things being fought at the squad level, to major engagements. That's pure terror for both sides. And, it has nothing to do with greed, or Machiavelli. It has to do with evil people seeking power, and us preventing it. It's far past time you accepted that reality.

 

You want to add weapons, but you are ignorant of what that does, and have no contingency for when it goes bad(<--biggest sin of the Bush admin). Here's how you and George W Bush are the same: both of you think it's possible to fight a war on the cheap, him in terms of money, you in terms of commitment to victory.

 

The upside of deploying our guys instead: We keep our weapons, we have disciplined commanders and troops which means 95% of time they won't be misused, and when it's over, we either take them back with us, or we destroy them. Nobody calls in artillery on a school for revenge, etc.

 

Also, what happens if these weapons are turned on Israel, or Turkey for that matter? Now civil unrest/war and small arms conflict has turned into full scale regional war, because your weapons are there to conduct it. Syria is already shooting at refugees over the border in Turkey as I write this. How much longer do you think Turkey is going to stand for that? But, you think that "alls we have to do is give em weapons"? You want us to fight a war by proxy with no way to control what happens to the weapons we provide after we give them up?

 

Again, I ask...does Fast and Furious sound familiar to you? Man, it's a good thing we don't have far-left people in the WH....oh, wait.

do no harm is the premier guiding principle in medicine, or at least should be. you make good points.

 

but in the middle of all this middle east upheaval, rumsfeld said "democracy is messy". and it is. if we really believe it to be the best system then we should help it play out. and it's not like all this started spontaneously without a spark. this, to a large extent, was the desired outcome of the iraqi war. i would think that affords the us some culpability and responsibility to see the process through.

Why do I feel like I'm writing a "Now do you get why your Iraq War arguments were retarded" essay? My only hope is that you take what I write here and share it with the rest of the "understanding and being realistic about war"-challenged community. Perhaps you could even "raise awareness" about Donald Rumsfeld making an accurate statement.

 

Listen to yourself. You've stated it. Think like a doctor, doctor. Doing more harm than good is the most likely outcome of your plan(as it is with most liberal plans), because it's based on emotion. Do you just give the immune system more weapons because "something has to be done right now", and hope it works, without regard to the consequences for the liver, kidneys, etc.? (BTW, I have no idea if that's right, I got it from House, The difference is: I don't go wading into medical arguments like I know WTF I am talking about, and, my knowledge base WRT war doesn't come largely from watching MASH)

 

You want to do something? Then the something is bring in our troops, get out of the way, and let them win. Yes civilians will be killed. Grow up and deal. Yes, terrible, unspeakable horror will occur. That's what happens in war. Grow up and deal. Cut domestic spending to pay for it, raise taxes, whatever, I don't care. I do care that we either fully commit to victory, or fully commit to staying home.

 

The real question: how much of your Medicare reimbursement are you willing to give up to see this injustice dealt with properly? Because that's where we are now. Insistence on ridiculous spending over the last 50 years has put us in that "one or the other" situation. And, even more ridiculous spending in Europe has put them in "do neither" mode.

 

But, that's only because the world doesn't need war, or warriors, anymore, instead it needs hand-outs, right? Is this the "moral and compassionate" wisdom us rednecks haven't learned from Europe/Canada yet? When is the right time for us to:

demand that the 500 million people of the EU "pay their fair share" when it comes to keeping the bad guys in check?

demand that the nonsense brokers in the EU STFU rather than complain about how we go about doing what they refuse/can't afford to provide for themselves?

 

When is it time for us to call Bullschit on European thinking in general? Isn't that what this country was fundamentally founded on?

Edited April 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Jauronimo]

Oh, that Annan. He is the former Secretary General. If he couldn't do a damn thing (other than enrich himself and alot of others) when he was in charge, why would you expect him to be able to do anything now?

Take it easy on the UN, 3rd. The UN has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to facilitate much more orderly slaughter than the monkey-**** fight that's going on in Syria. Let the UN go into Syria, establish a few safe zones, gather the rebels and refugees, and the bloodshed will be over faster than you can say Srebrenica.