List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

[Metsfanmax]

How can you seriously think that a U.S. conflict in Syria is a good thing? Not just right now, but ever? What national or international interest is achieved beyond hegemony in the region for the United States (which has not been stated as a reason given by the supporters of the conflict within the White House)? If the answer is "humanitarian" then why not Sudan or any of the other regions of the world where conflict and abuse and potential genocide is rampant?

Do you think that U.S. hegemony in the region is not a good reason for our involvement?

[chang50]

How can you seriously think that a U.S. conflict in Syria is a good thing? Not just right now, but ever? What national or international interest is achieved beyond hegemony in the region for the United States (which has not been stated as a reason given by the supporters of the conflict within the White House)? If the answer is "humanitarian" then why not Sudan or any of the other regions of the world where conflict and abuse and potential genocide is rampant?

Do you think that U.S. hegemony in the region is not a good reason for our involvement?

It's obviously the main reason regardless of it being a good one or not.Wouldn't it be refreshing for once to see it admitted as such.This would apply to all countries foreign policy not just the US.

[thegreekdog]

How can you seriously think that a U.S. conflict in Syria is a good thing? Not just right now, but ever? What national or international interest is achieved beyond hegemony in the region for the United States (which has not been stated as a reason given by the supporters of the conflict within the White House)? If the answer is "humanitarian" then why not Sudan or any of the other regions of the world where conflict and abuse and potential genocide is rampant?

Do you think that U.S. hegemony in the region is not a good reason for our involvement?

Ignoring that I'm a non-interventionist (because I am and don't care about hegemony), U.S. hegemony in the region is an excellent reason to become involved in a Syrian conflict. That is not the reason given by the president or his supporters. Further, the president and his supporters lambasted (rightfully) previous administrations' efforts to expand U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, so if they do give that reason, they are being blatantly and obviously hypocritical. And, given that Democrats (the voters, not the politicians) tend to be doves, not hawks, it's rather confusing.

Sum Up - I would not support the intervention if the state or unstated reason was U.S. hegemony. I can see how some would support the intervention on that basis, but I cannot see how Democrats or President Obama could support such intervention on that basis given their prior views on such interventions.

Related aside - The polls I've looked at show that support for Syrian intervention among those polled is in the low 20% range. That means it's not just conservatives (voters again, not politicians) that are against intervention.

[BigBallinStalin]

How can you seriously think that a U.S. conflict in Syria is a good thing? Not just right now, but ever? What national or international interest is achieved beyond hegemony in the region for the United States (which has not been stated as a reason given by the supporters of the conflict within the White House)? If the answer is "humanitarian" then why not Sudan or any of the other regions of the world where conflict and abuse and potential genocide is rampant?

Do you think that U.S. hegemony in the region is not a good reason for our involvement?

It's obviously the main reason regardless of it being a good one or not.Wouldn't it be refreshing for once to see it admitted as such.This would apply to all countries foreign policy not just the US.

It would be refreshing, but since we're dealing with politicians, we should expect them to maximize votes/maximize chances of remaining in office, so they wouldn't say such things--even if they were true---especially if they're a Democrat, who are not at all as aggressive as the Republicans (sure, yahp, sure sure sure).

[rishaed]

And nice job TGD, for no longer being the bigger man.

I can't help myself because I can't stand the hypocrisy. There is nothing worse than a chest-thumping hypocrit. At least Frigidus has the good grace to admit that he backed a DINO for president.

How can you seriously think that a U.S. conflict in Syria is a good thing? Not just right now, but ever? What national or international interest is achieved beyond hegemony in the region for the United States (which has not been stated as a reason given by the supporters of the conflict within the White House)? If the answer is "humanitarian" then why not Sudan or any of the other regions of the world where conflict and abuse and potential genocide is rampant?

The only answers I can see for the reason you support this conflict is because the president you support is in favor of it and you don't have the wherewithal or desire to conflict with his desires. There is nothing I've read to date that provides any other coherent reason.

long JB post
3 ADHD Translations later: Oh look a Shark! And lions and tigers and bears oh my!

[rishaed]

On the other hand, while I would enjoy seeing politicians tell the truth about what they are really after, I don't think its ever going to happen. So much for the ethics they have to learn in college....

[Juan_Bottom]

I've bolded (in red) my portion of the serious discussion above.

That portion of the serious discussion happened at the beginning of the thread. So when you say things like "i've red noting from you that shows a coherent reason accept that you love Barack Hussein Obama," you're not partaking in a serious discussion. You're just jumping in and sticking up for BBS.

[Juan_Bottom]

long JB post
3 ADHD Translations later: Oh look a Shark! And lions and tigers and bears oh my!

Careful where you jump in at.
The other side of this discussion thinks that Saudi Arabia is forcing Obama to attack Syria.
Also, they believe that the American government is the leader of a global conspiracy to force all governments to use American currency for all commodity transactions.

It's pretty disheartening to hear patches say that the Syrian Rebels used chemical weapons on their own people, in a false flag attack to give Obama an excuse to attack Assad. But it's a much bigger problem when Saxi and BBS instantly agree with this. This thread is full of conspiracy nuts.

[thegreekdog]

I've bolded (in red) my portion of the serious discussion above.

That portion of the serious discussion happened at the beginning of the thread. So when you say things like "i've red noting from you that shows a coherent reason accept that you love Barack Hussein Obama," you're not partaking in a serious discussion. You're just jumping in and sticking up for BBS.

Your post on page 2 (and subsequent posts) do not answer any of the questions I posed. Are you going to address those questions or are you going to keep lobbing disturbed ad hominem attacks in my direction? How long did it take you to type that thing on the previous page? An hour? Two?

[saxitoxin]

It's pretty disheartening to hear patches say that the Syrian Rebels used chemical weapons on their own people, in a false flag attack to give Obama an excuse to attack Assad. But it's a much bigger problem when Saxi and BBS instantly agree with this.

It's unfortunate when one's position is so untenable one has to lie to support it.

I never said that. I simply noted (without comment), via link to the BBC, that the celebrated Italian journalist - Domenico Quirico - of the iconic, 148 year-old Italian newspaper La Stampa said that, during his 6 months of being held captive and tortured by the FSA, he had personally observed the FSA claim to have used chemical weapons.

You, however, said ...

This thread is full of conspiracy nuts.

JB: "There is a conspiracy by the corporate media [sic] and the 1% to prevent war in Syria just to embarrass Obama as part of an evil global plot. Also, none of the peace protesters actually want peace, they're just part of a secret conspiracy to embarrass Obama."

[paraphrased from original, 5,000 word screed for brevity]

[saxitoxin]

Syria "Expert" Cited by Kerry, McCain Lied About Doctorate

During last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) read from an “important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy,” whom he described as a “Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.” That group fired O'Bagy Wednesday after learning she had falsely claimed she holds a Ph.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 08341.html

Elizabeth O'Baggy was cited by Kerry-McCain as a "Syria expert" despite being 26 years old, having only been to the Levant once in her life, not speaking Arabic, and having lied about her Ph.D. One of her wild claims was that the rebels are a pro-democracy group of peace protesters - the same bizarre, unhinged assertion made by JB.

So remember, the people who are advising Ol' Blood 'n Guts Obama that the USA should bomb Syria into oblivion essentially have the same qualifications as JB ... a frightening thing to imagine in the aftermath of one of his wild-eyed, rambling, 7-page paranoid screeds accusing people of secretly conspiring to "get" him.

Me, I personally support a meritocratic government run by the rational and intellectual, not an idiocracy run by paranoid Chickenhawks.

[saxitoxin]

The other side of this discussion thinks that Saudi Arabia is forcing Obama to attack Syria.

Why do you like to lie, Juan_Bottom, Ph.D.? Don't lie Juan_Bottom, Ph.D. Surely your position has enough legs to stand on that you don't need to lie to support it, Juan_Bottom, Ph.D.? I said "Israel" and I stand by it -


http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publicatio ... MemoV2.pdf

“The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.”
- George Bernard Shaw

[AndyDufresne]

Syria "Expert" Cited by Kerry, McCain Lied About Doctorate

During last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) read from an “important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy,” whom he described as a “Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.” That group fired O'Bagy Wednesday after learning she had falsely claimed she holds a Ph.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 08341.html

Elizabeth O'Baggy was cited by Kerry-McCain as a "Syria expert" despite being 26 years old, having only been to the Levant once in her life, not speaking Arabic, and having lied about her Ph.D. One of her wild claims was that the rebels are a pro-democracy group of peace protesters - the same bizarre, unhinged assertion made by JB.

So remember, the people who are advising Ol' Blood 'n Guts Obama that the USA should bomb Syria into oblivion essentially have the same qualifications as JB ... a frightening thing to imagine in the aftermath of one of his wild-eyed, rambling, 7-page paranoid screeds accusing people of secretly conspiring to "get" him.

Me, I personally support a meritocratic government run by the rational and intellectual, not an idiocracy run by paranoid Chickenhawks.

I don't have a dog in this fight between saxi and juan, but at least she had a proper name, instead of something like curveball.


--Andy

[Dukasaur]

Syria "Expert" Cited by Kerry, McCain Lied About Doctorate

During last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) read from an “important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy,” whom he described as a “Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.” That group fired O'Bagy Wednesday after learning she had falsely claimed she holds a Ph.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 08341.html

Elizabeth O'Baggy was cited by Kerry-McCain as a "Syria expert" despite being 26 years old, having only been to the Levant once in her life, not speaking Arabic, and having lied about her Ph.D. One of her wild claims was that the rebels are a pro-democracy group of peace protesters - the same bizarre, unhinged assertion made by JB.

So remember, the people who are advising Ol' Blood 'n Guts Obama that the USA should bomb Syria into oblivion essentially have the same qualifications as JB ... a frightening thing to imagine in the aftermath of one of his wild-eyed, rambling, 7-page paranoid screeds accusing people of secretly conspiring to "get" him.

Me, I personally support a meritocratic government run by the rational and intellectual, not an idiocracy run by paranoid Chickenhawks.

I don't have a dog in this fight between saxi and juan, but at least she had a proper name, instead of something like curveball.


--Andy

Oh! Baggy! sounds more like a brand of denims than a person.

[saxitoxin]

at least she had a proper name, instead of something like curveball

[Qwert]

long JB post
3 ADHD Translations later: Oh look a Shark! And lions and tigers and bears oh my!

Careful where you jump in at.
The other side of this discussion thinks that Saudi Arabia is forcing Obama to attack Syria.
Also, they believe that the American government is the leader of a global conspiracy to force all governments to use American currency for all commodity transactions.

It's pretty disheartening to hear patches say that the Syrian Rebels used chemical weapons on their own people, in a false flag attack to give Obama an excuse to attack Assad. But it's a much bigger problem when Saxi and BBS instantly agree with this. This thread is full of conspiracy nuts.

Juan,if im in Obama place, i will not be satisfy with Syria Government who want to give all hes chemical weapons to internationals on display and watch. Are you not a little suspicious how Obama and Kerry wait, and not start all ready attack on Syria. For me will be normal that Obama and Kerry say " Syria can give all hes chemical weapons, but we will still attack hem for they attack with chemical weapons"

If you have red lines, who are crossed, and you start to hesitate, and start to shift to some other to make decision instead you (Congress) , then people can really start to be suspicious on your evidences ,and on your real attentions in this situation.

[AndyDufresne]

If you have red lines, who are crossed, and you start to hesitate, and start to shift to some other to make decision instead you (Congress) , then people can really start to be suspicious on your evidences ,and on your real attentions in this situation.

Since you are outside of the political system in the USA, qwert, I think him shifting to congress has little to do with the evidence, more than he was wary of unilaterally making an unpopular decision since public opinion polls have largely or all tended to be against it. Thus, he wanted some partners to share the blame and to say it was a team effort with through the representatives of the American people.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

If you have red lines, who are crossed, and you start to hesitate, and start to shift to some other to make decision instead you (Congress) , then people can really start to be suspicious on your evidences ,and on your real attentions in this situation.

Since you are outside of the political system in the USA, qwert, I think him shifting to congress has little to do with the evidence, more than he was wary of unilaterally making an unpopular decision since public opinion polls have largely or all tended to be against it. Thus, he wanted some partners to share the blame and to say it was a team effort with through the representatives of the American people.


--Andy

Who was it that said Andy wasn't politically savvy? Oh yeah, Andy himself.

Definitely on-point and accurate comment.

Here are 50 more Saxbucks (Saxi can mint his own, so he can give you way more than I can).

[AndyDufresne]

Who was it that said Andy wasn't politically savvy? Oh yeah, Andy himself.

Definitely on-point and accurate comment.

Here are 50 more Saxbucks (Saxi can mint his own, so he can give you way more than I can).

Back to Star Trek gifs.




--Andy

[Dukasaur]

And poor Woodruff not here.

[Juan_Bottom]

Syria "Expert" Cited by Kerry, McCain Lied About Doctorate

During last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) read from an “important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy,” whom he described as a “Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.” That group fired O'Bagy Wednesday after learning she had falsely claimed she holds a Ph.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 08341.html

Elizabeth O'Baggy was cited by Kerry-McCain as a "Syria expert" despite being 26 years old, having only been to the Levant once in her life, not speaking Arabic, and having lied about her Ph.D. One of her wild claims was that the rebels are a pro-democracy group of peace protesters - the same bizarre, unhinged assertion made by JB.

So remember, the people who are advising Ol' Blood 'n Guts Obama that the USA should bomb Syria into oblivion essentially have the same qualifications as JB ... a frightening thing to imagine in the aftermath of one of his wild-eyed, rambling, 7-page paranoid screeds accusing people of secretly conspiring to "get" him.

Me, I personally support a meritocratic government run by the rational and intellectual, not an idiocracy run by paranoid Chickenhawks.

Team Assad bombed Syria into oblivion.

This is essentially Reductio ad Hitlerum, except Kerry is Hitler to you. Or I'm Hitler to you.... well, anyone who disagrees with your character is Hitler to you.

I never cited this person as an expert. Like I said in the Bengahzi thread, I interviewed Syrians for my website, and that and listening to NPR for two years are what influenced me the most. And then, a healthy understanding of History. Your idea that the Syrian people need a President-for-life who's willing to murder them all to hold onto power is absurd, because it's based on this idea that only an enslaved Syria can free Palestine. I consider the stupidity of that to be self-evident.
Assad gleaned $150billion dollars from Syria's resources and funneled it into private bank accounts for himself. Meanwhile Syria is running out of it's natural resources, and the people there live on average, less than $100(US) a month. So the people peacefully petitioned for more freedom, and Assad murdered them in the streets for it. He sent tanks and soldiers and armored cars against civilians armed with picket signs and chants. And then you act like Obama is the bad guy when he gives the people guns to fight back with, and Assad is a folk hero for offering "to share power" after the oppressed rose against him in a fiery rage. Obama can be no worse for this situation than George Washington was.
Assad does not strengthen Syria, he weakens it. This Civil War is entirely his fault. He adds nothing to Syria's health and takes everything he wants. He is an Oligarchical parasite. He is exactly the same kind of parasite that you would lambast back when you first appeared on CC as the Olden-Timey German man who was some kind of Communist-Anarchist. Your character has changed, Bro. Thus began the era of Dark Saxi.

I have not forgot either, that your expert from ZEROHEDGE, the conspiracy website, was a disgraced stock trader barred from the stock exchange for insider trading. He then started an anti-government conspiracy website to get revenge on the financial institution that banned him. And the story you called "Great summary of the situation [in Syria]." was written by a journalist who admits to never being in Syria. Everything that you accuse other people of doing you've already done. You're a pigeon playing chess, shitting back and forth and calling it a great victory.

I don't have a dog in this fight between saxi and juan, but at least she had a proper name, instead of something like curveball.

Or "Tyler Durden" in the case of Saxi's "expert."

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan,if im in Obama place, i will not be satisfy with Syria Government who want to give all hes chemical weapons to internationals on display and watch. Are you not a little suspicious how Obama and Kerry wait, and not start all ready attack on Syria. For me will be normal that Obama and Kerry say " Syria can give all hes chemical weapons, but we will still attack hem for they attack with chemical weapons"

If you have red lines, who are crossed, and you start to hesitate, and start to shift to some other to make decision instead you (Congress) , then people can really start to be suspicious on your evidences ,and on your real attentions in this situation.

I'm not suspicious in the least.
There have been repeated "theories" in this thread that have fallen to the wayside, from "America will attack Syria and install a new leader" to "America will attack Syria for Oil."

But I've constantly rejected those, and the people who made these predictions have been forgotten, but I'm still being attacked despite the fact that the Illuminati still haven't appeared. The core of the Obama-Syria plan was this -

We would arm and train a small number of hand-picked FSA rebels in Libya, away from the fighting. And we were only talking about training few dozen a month.
We would allow arms to be sent to the rebels.
Our Navy would sit off the coast and launch missiles at Assad's military assets that the Rebels could not deal with.

Historically, this kind of aid is common. The French did this for us in 1776, and that's how we won our independence from our king.
We've never planned to invade Syria or steal their Oil or whatever. This is just a police action. If Kerry and the Russians agree to pull all of Assad's chemical stockpile to neutral ground, then there's no historical reason to suspect that it's an American trap. Never in all of history has 1 member of the UN security council pulled a stupid trick like that on the other members, for a country the size of Nebraska. America does not want to control Syria, it's more about making friends and stabilizing our allies borders. It's the price we pay for being the only global superpower.

kk, for anyone. How is striking Syria going to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again? I understand the level 1 reasoning, but wondering about the literal application.

That's a damn fine question.
IMHO, he's playing a political game with Congress. He doesn't want to attack Assad, he wants the Republicans to back down for him. Meanwhile Obama looks like a strong president to the rest of the world. If anything should happen in the future, and he wants to use our military, he can say "oh I'm not asking Congress anymore. They can't get anything done." But for right now, he shifts the focus on Congress.
It wasn't very long ago the Republicans were calling him weak on terror and weak on Syria, for not enforcing his own red line. Now our do-nothing Congress is going to take the heat. Obama still won't look all that great, but he will still look strong while Congress looks worse than ever.

That's my guess.

[BigBallinStalin]

JB is like the drunk guy who has yet to realize he lost the fight about 2 hours ago.

JB, there is some probability that if you keep pounding your keyboard, you might come up with a correct answer.

[Juan_Bottom]

JB is like the drunk guy who has yet to realize he lost the fight about 2 hours ago.

JB, there is some probability that if you keep pounding your keyboard, you might come up with a correct answer.

Really? cuz I remember that you couldn't even find a source for your argument, then demanded that I answer your points anyway. I still say you don't have a point if you can't source it anywhere. That's just called "hearsay."

Then you all said Obama was a psychopath bent on war with Syria (2 years after the Civil War started) in order to get an Oil Pipeline that already exists in another location. And then guess what happens? Obama backs down from military strikes, and opens up the channels of international discussion instead. Apparently you forgot how wrong you were. Paranoid. Troll.

Reality check.

[BigBallinStalin]

Lemme summarize your style for the past 2 or so pages--after your great defeat.

You don't have anything to offer as an argument (excluding your many argumentum ad nauseams). You'll rely on vague references to distorted points about an opponent's argument which you couldn't summarize (e.g. "obama = psycopath", lol). Then after the emotional anguish, you'll double dip into the logical fallacies with a good sprinkling of ad hominems.

I could ask again for you to re-evaluate the many problems with your ongoing arguments and babbling, but you'll ignore that request. You deny yourself the ability to critically think about your own positions, and you constantly fall victim to your cognitive bias, so you have no means to prevent yourself from being idiotic. I've demonstrated this with enough evidence. (How could it be a logical fallacy if it's true?)