BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 Until he makes more. A more accurate statement would be....."I am also quite glad that extremists in the middle east won't be able to use the WMDs that were turned over." They are quite different statements. You're really reaching. Accept that it's a good thing, credit W. if necessary, and let's move on. Sorry if I'm not doing this . It seems to be bothering you that I'm not. Why would I give credit to W? I'm fine with moving on. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Why would I give credit to W? There seems to be a reluctance among some to hang out the old Mission Accomplished banner like we did when W. got Bin Laden. I honestly can't think of any other reason why anyone would pretend that this isn't really good news. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 Why would I give credit to W? There seems to be a reluctance among some to hang out the old Mission Accomplished banner like we did when W. got Bin Laden. I honestly can't think of any other reason why anyone would pretend that this isn't really good news. Funny you should bring this up. During this conversation I have been thinking this seems similar to when W hung up the "mission accomplished" banner. Some people want to dance in joy. Some good things have happened but I'm not ready to celebrate. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 During this conversation I have been thinking this seems similar to when W hung up the "mission accomplished" banner. It's hard to think of more dissimilar circumstances. Scenario 1: lie about a country having WMDs (or at the very least say that they did and be proven incorrect), ground invasion, declare "Mission Accomplished", find no functioning WMDs, leave US troops dying in the country for another 8 years. Scenario 2: Threaten a country with air strikes if they don't surrender their chemical weapons, country surrenders chemical weapons. Other than that . . . yeah . . . pretty reminiscent of W.'s debacles. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 No, they are pretty similar. Two situations where people want to claim an enormous victory and celebrate when it's way too early to do so. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 No, they are pretty similar. Oh boy. 2 Link to comment
zoogs Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Syria isn't our war (this should be to the satisfaction of anyone whose position is that America can't police the world). Even a full-scale invasion and overthrow and boots on the ground wouldn't be a guarantee to the end of brutalities there -- that was never on the table. What was on the table was the international norm of chemical weapons. I agree, it feels weird to say "do as you like, just not with ____", but that's what it is. We have a government that once had these weapons, and now no longer does, as a result of diplomatic pressure and a joint international effort. That's as much as we can do short of an actual regime change intervention, which I'm sure is not what you're calling for. That's what Iraq was in 2003 with a shaky coalition and under similar pretenses that ultimately turned out to be false. What ends up happening in Syria...I'm sure we're still hoping al-Assad will be forced to step down. That fight's not over, and I don't think anybody claimed that it was. The only reason to downplay this is to begrudge the President politically. I don't think that's what you're doing, Buster, because you're far more moderate and reasonable than that. But I think you are echoing the sentiments that the political opposition media campaign is projecting. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The only reason to downplay this is to begrudge the President politically. I don't think that's what you're doing, Buster, because you're far more moderate and reasonable than that. But I think you are echoing the sentiments that the political opposition media campaign is projecting. +1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 Syria isn't our war (this should be to the satisfaction of anyone whose position is that America can't police the world). Even a full-scale invasion and overthrow and boots on the ground wouldn't be a guarantee to the end of brutalities there -- that was never on the table. What was on the table was the international norm of chemical weapons. I agree, it feels weird to say "do as you like, just not with ____", but that's what it is. We have a government that once had these weapons, and now no longer does, as a result of diplomatic pressure and a joint international effort. That's as much as we can do short of an actual regime change intervention, which I'm sure is not what you're calling for. That's what Iraq was in 2003 with a shaky coalition and under similar pretenses that ultimately turned out to be false. What ends up happening in Syria...I'm sure we're still hoping al-Assad will be forced to step down. That fight's not over, and I don't think anybody claimed that it was. The only reason to downplay this is to begrudge the President politically. I don't think that's what you're doing, Buster, because you're far more moderate and reasonable than that. But I think you are echoing the sentiments that the political opposition media campaign is projecting. I'm not echoing any "media campaign" because I honestly haven't heard this reported on any TV or radio station that I listen to and I haven't sat and listened to any political talk shows talking about this. Good Lord....if one thing should be clear on here is that I don't watch or listen to that crap. Honestly, this is the only place I have ever seen this even mentioned. I have said that what has happened is a good thing. I feel like people are looking at me funny because I'm not throwing parties over this. Heck, I have said this is a victory to a certain extent. Which, would mean it's sort of a victory for Obama. So....just because I classify it a little I now "begrudge the President politically". I know you said you don't think I'm doing that but you also said it's the only reason someone would put it the way I'm putting it. Sorry if I'm a little shell shocked over celebrating political or military "victories" in other countries. I am very reluctant to do so in almost any circumstance because....quite frankly....innocent people are still getting killed by what I would call a WMD. OK...it's not on some international list. But, I'm comfortable personally claiming Chlorine Gas can be used in a manner of a weapon of mass destruction when it is released and many people die. A WMD is a chemical (or other substance or device) that can be used to kill or bring significant harm to large numbers of humans. At least that's the way Wiki puts it. I'm pretty sure Chlorine Gas can be used that way and reading the article posted in this thread, it looks like it is being used that way by Assad. So....I'm done with the conversation and I will allow Carl to have a party over the issue this weekend. Congrats. Some good things have happened....Cheers! Oh...and PS....yes...it' a good thing Syria i not our war. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 So....I'm done with the conversation and I will allow Carl to have a party over the issue this weekend. Congrats. Some good things have happened....Cheers! I need no excuse to party . . . but I'll party nonetheless . . . grudgingly. Link to comment
zoogs Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Sorry if that came off the wrong way, BRB. You don't need to watch any media outlets to adopt the lens of 'There are no victories for President Obama'. Granted, some of us have the opposite predisposition. People aren't looking at you funny because you're not throwing parties over this. My response was based on your assertion that this was pretty similar to W's Mission Accomplished banner in 2003. The chlorine gas thing, I didn't know about that, and would be interested in hearing more. Maybe it should be classified as such. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The chlorine gas thing, I didn't know about that, and would be interested in hearing more. Maybe it should be classified as such. Chlorine (IIRC) was one of the first gases used as a weapon. The Germans used it in WWI. They quickly moved on to using much more deadly gas weapons . . . because chlorine isn't particularly deadly when compared to other gases (i.e. chlorine must be delivered in high concentrations and over a long period of time when compared to other chemical weapons). Chlorine is a very common industrial chemical with legitimate uses . . . probably including purifying the water that we all drank today. Wiki, so grain of salt: Chlorine was, however, less effective as a weapon than the Germans had hoped, particularly as soon as simple counter-measures were introduced. The gas produced a visible greenish cloud and strong odour, making it easy to detect. It was water-soluble, so the simple expedient of covering the mouth and nose with a damp cloth was somewhat effective at reducing the effect of the gas. It was thought to be even more effective to use urine rather than water, as it was known at the time that chlorine reacted readily with urea (present in urine) to form dichloro urea.[19] Chlorine required a concentration of 1,000 parts per million to be fatal, destroying tissue in the lungs, likely through the formation of hydrochloric acid when dissolved in the water in the lungs (2Cl2 + 2H2O → 4HCl + O2).[20] Despite its limitations, however, chlorine was an effective psychological weapon—the sight of an oncoming cloud of the gas was a continual source of dread for the infantry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I Link to comment
walksalone Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 So I guess the moral outrage has petered out on this one? Which moral outrage? I don't really want the US to invade another country in the middle east and I don't see any other way that we could tip the balance in their civil war. Well, it seemed some of the "leadership" in this country wanted us involved, which I agree, is a sh*t idea, unless we level the whole place and everyone in it... Link to comment
walksalone Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Syria is still sh*tty... https://news.vice.com/article/video-shows-massive-hotel-explosion-in-aleppo Link to comment
NUance Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 So I guess the moral outrage has petered out on this one?Which moral outrage? I don't really want the US to invade another country in the middle east and I don't see any other way that we could tip the balance in their civil war. Well, it seemed some of the "leadership" in this country wanted us involved, which I agree, is a sh*t idea, unless we level the whole place and everyone in it... That, and Israel doesn't want us to step in yet. America closely follows orders from Israel when it comes to middle eastern policy. Link to comment
Recommended Posts