U.S. Politics - the end of summer edition

[awesome possum]

A percent of established international law. Specifically that chemical weapons are wrong and no one should use them.

That said law has been ignored on many occasions does not mean it should continue to be ignored. Generally when such things are being ignored, that's taken as evidence you should stop ignoring international law, not that you should continue to do so.

You're right, no one should use them. And yet, I in no way whatsoever see how their use justifies the United States bombing the shit out of "regime" targets which will likely kill hundreds or thousand more Syrian civilians.

Drop some logic on me that explains this process, please, because "how dare you kill your civilians. We're going to show you by killing your civilians!" doesn't really come across as anything resembling logic.

:rolleyes:

Is this seriously the new accusation? Really?

Excellent rebuttal.

It's not an accusation. The sequester cuts to the Pentagon go into effect October 1. A new military action would negate those cuts. Low and fucking behold, a month before those cuts are due to go into effect we are preparing for a military action.

Take off your blinders, man. There is nothing good that will come out of getting involved there. So what if Obama loses a worthless, pointless dick-measuring contest by not intervening after his juvenile "red line" comment? So. Fucking. What.

[Horza]

Excellent rebuttal.

It's not an accusation. The sequester cuts to the Pentagon go into effect October 1. A new military action would negate those cuts. Low and fucking behold, a month before those cuts are due to go into effect we are preparing for a military action.

Right, that explains why the CJCS keeps putting out stuff like this.

[awesome possum]

Right, that explains why the CJCS keeps putting out stuff like this.

Wait, he "keeps putting stuff out" like that? Because that seems to me to be just one thing, where he merely said it would be costly and maybe risky. To which anyone with an ounce of common sense says, "no shit."

He also says that they are already prepared, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make:

Dempsey said the Pentagon was prepared for at least five options: train, advise and assist the opposition; limited stand-off strikes; a no-fly zone; buffer zones; and controlling chemical weapons.

[Horza]

Wait, he "keeps putting stuff out" like that? Because that seems to me to be just one thing, where he merely said it would be costly and maybe risky. To which anyone with an ounce of common sense says, "no shit."

He also says that they are already prepared, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make:

Dempsey said the Pentagon was prepared for at least five options: train, advise and assist the opposition; limited stand-off strikes; a no-fly zone; buffer zones; and controlling chemical weapons.

Yeah, of course the DoD is planning for stuff it might get asked to do. But does that sound like an organisation chomping at the bit?

[awesome possum]

No, it sounds like one guy who knows he's got a pile of shit to shovel and he's personally going to come out of it stinking no matter what happens.

[Ser Greguh]

Yeah, of course the DoD is planning for stuff it might get asked to do. But does that sound like an organisation chomping at the bit?

The DoD puts a lot of effort into designing contingency plans for essentially everything. If Obama decided tomorrow that he wanted to invade Azerbaijan, there would probably be a dozen options available for him the next day.

[Horza]

No, it sounds like one guy who knows he's got a pile of shit to shovel and he's personally going to come out of it stinking no matter what happens.

...so maybe he's not desperately keen on another Middle East war to pad out the budget? Cool.

[awesome possum]

...so maybe he's not desperately keen on another Middle East war to pad out the budget? Cool.

Ahh, so apparently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the entire Pentagon much like how the sitting president is the entire government. Gotcha.

[Horza]

Ahh, so apparently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the entire Pentagon much like how the sitting president is the entire government. Gotcha.

You were alive and of sound mind in 2002-03, you know what an armed forces bureaucracy lined up for Middle East war looks like. This isn't it.

[awesome possum]

You were alive and of sound mind in 2002-03, you know what an armed forces bureaucracy lined up for Middle East war looks like. This isn't it.

That's because this isn't supposed to be "war." This is "train, advise and assist the opposition; limited stand-off strikes; a no-fly zone; buffer zones; or controlling chemical weapons."

[Horza]

That's because this isn't supposed to be "war." This is "train, advise and assist the opposition; limited stand-off strikes; a no-fly zone; buffer zones; or controlling chemical weapons."

Again, that's the sort of stuff they're prepared to do if asked. It's their job. This inane theory depends on the DoD being desperate for deep, expensive, budget-expanding warfare in Syria, evidence of which is not forthcoming. It wasn't the DoD that bound the US position to 'red lines' on chemical weapons. It isn't the DoD that right now is pushing for action beyond airstrikes. The US is where it is on Syrian intervention because of criteria set by the President, not the JCS.

[awesome possum]

You can claim its an insane theory as your right to have your own opinion. Mine is that it's just a little bit too much of a coincidence that the US is getting ready to strike yet another Middle Eastern country - something the majority of Americans are still opposed to - right before cuts to the defense budget are about to go into effect.

[Lord Mord]

I think our general dick-waving, warmongering arrogance is a much more plausible explanation. More evidence, fewer assumptions.

[lokisnow]

I think our general dick-waving, warmongering arrogance is a much more plausible explanation. More evidence, fewer assumptions.

yeah, probably true.

Also true was earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the Pentagon is more cautious about wasting life than the petty bureaucrats of the State Department. That's a good point: that the lawyers and paper pushers of DC government staffs are probably lots more enthusiastic and excited to slaughter Syrian civilians to teach Assad a lesson to not slaughter Syrian civilians. When it comes to killing people, god save us from DC staffers pushing war, because they don't give a flying fuck and are never in harms way nor do they know anyone in harms way, unlike the DoD people.

[Galactus]

The media over here is going crazy over Obama's visit, by the way.

[Horza]

You can claim its an insane theory as your right to have your own opinion. Mine is that it's just a little bit too much of a coincidence that the US is getting ready to strike yet another Middle Eastern country - something the majority of Americans are still opposed to - right before cuts to the defense budget are about to go into effect.

I said inane.

And frankly, you can shove the "isn't it just so convenient" routine - things co-incide all the goddamn time. We live in a random universe. You want to advance this theory you need more than convenience.

[snake]

What I find amusing is that people are actually using the fact that chemical weapon use is banned by international law to justify breaking international law in order to attack another country who allegedly used the CW. Must be that they only think some international laws are worth upholding.

[Shryke]

What I find amusing is that people are actually using the fact that chemical weapon use is banned by international law to justify breaking international law in order to attack another country who allegedly used the CW. Must be that they only think some international laws are worth upholding.

Which international law are you claiming they would be breaking?

[snake]

The one that explicitly says you cannot attack another country unless it is self-defense or you have UNSC approval. It's really quite clear.

[Shryke]

The one that explicitly says you cannot attack another country unless it is self-defense or you have UNSC approval. It's really quite clear.

Which one is that?