If the air strikes prove ineffective I can definitely see the Obama administration utilizing a series of elite specialized units to secure certain sites within Syria. However, I have no doubt that if this happens they will face fire from both rebel and government forces. A complete fucking nightmare

Bringing things back around on the whole Willie Pete (White phosphorus) thing, these are most commonly understood as tracer rounds in munitions. If you are shot wioth a tracer round 'melted flesh' is one of the side effects of a bullet hole. As a munition, it is not shot from a weapon to create a smoke screen but to course correct automatic weapons fire or/and as an igniter as phosphorus burns hot. White phosphorus is a component of "smoke grenades" as well.

jeff duncan quoted Nietzsche in the House hearing, after discussing Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS 'scandal', and NSA wiretapping in asking how we can help out here and not go help out four brave americans. because those two things are related.

two guesses as to whether duncan has read anything else by Nietzsche and your first guess doesn't count.

i'm not sure what we accomplish by going on, seems like fixing this is done at the discussion table. that being said, some of the comments about being mired in another war, etc, seem out of sort with what they're actually going to do, which is not much (and the latter is why this all seems pointless).

I think Luzinski'sGut's post explains it best why something that seems so little can set up some horrible, horrible effects.

Assange appears to be a jumbled mess:

Friday morning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange participated in an online chat session hosted by Campus Reform, in which he offered up some special praise for conservatives Matt Drudge and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Assange applauded The Drudge Report for disrupting the “self-censorship of the establishment press” and held up Paul as one of the most “principled” members of the U.S. Congress.

Responding to questions from Campus Reform editor-in-chief Josiah Ryan, Assange began by calling Drudge a “news media innovator” who has been on the rise since the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform,” Assange said, “and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship.”

He also noted that social media has supplanted much of what Drudge is known for, which he described as “collecting interesting rumors that looked like they might be true and publishing them.” Assange said he only agrees with “some” of Drudge’s political opinions.

“I am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues,” Assange said, saying they have been some of his “strongest supporters” when it comes to attacks on WikiLeaks. He called the position of the “libertarian Republican right” an “interesting phenomenon.” He pointed out that they principle of “non-violence” could include being against both drone warfare and abortion.

Drudge just posts up a bunch of links to other websites to create a false narrative for the day. What a hero.

The Dude wrote:I think Luzinski'sGut's post explains it best why something that seems so little can set up some horrible, horrible effects.

i read it and he certainly knows more than me, and i see worst case scenario how all these forces can pull nations in, but i dont think it appears very likely because posturing between us and russia and iran has become the status quo at this point. i dont think we should go in at all. i hope congress votes it down, for whatever good and bad reasons, and i hope the president respects it like Cameron did and instead tries to go the diplomatic route, for whatever good that may do.

it's not just about pulling other nations in, it's about worsening the situation there. If they handicap the government, one of the militant Islamic pieces of the rebel armies would have a much easier time stepping in.

do we think this will stop them from using chemical weapons again? before mccain added in that horrible caveat about the goal being overthrow, i was for this if the former was the goal. i might be for it if this will make a difference? i guess it's about being punitive more than accomplishing a goal, but do we do a strike based on that? boy i dont know.

i see what you mean about changing things there.

drsmooth wrote:

karn wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html

Exactly the kind of shit I mean about the means and ends not jiving. This is phase 1 in the works

there's little precision in any of that Daily Mail report. Perhaps you can connect some dots for us?

I'll try. So while the intended objectives of this particular resolution don't officially include regime change, that is certainly one of if not the number one long term priority. Not only do we want it, Saudi Arabia wants it and their wealth and assets make them the leader of leaders here. Kerry in fact stated as much at the hearing - that the Arab League is hurling money at us to go all the way with this. And while we obviously can't admit we sell war...we sell war. Which is why the pitch point sloganeering of "no boots on the ground" does carry a big asterisk in the actual resolution:

"The authority granted in section 2(a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations."

So there's your loophole and your slippery slope into war. Obama CAN put boots on the ground - just not for combat operations. Hence, phase 1. From there the writing is on the wall. We'll land a few body blows with this one, tell the world how close we are to liberating the poor Syrian people, obligated to bring the dawn of a newly-enlightened ready-to-install rebel-led democratic authority (because we'll vet them real good) and so on. And since we're already there and so close they'll say, we'll just need that one last (next) resolution to send a few companies in to knock it out of the park and wrap this one up all neat and tidy like in Liberia...and...Libya...and...Afghanistan...and Iraq.

I am no Assad fan. I was not a Qadaffi or Sadaam or Mubarak fan. But the fact is in spite (or because) of their monstrousness, they maintained a control. And we supported that control until we didn't, which coincidentally usually happened around the time we needed or wanted something. What we see now, as the fruits of our loving interventions, is no control in any of those places. And, frankly, sometimes lawlessness at the top actually trumps lawlessness throughout. Ironically, this is the model we most nearly approach.

So even if the admittedly imprecise Daily Mail article is off - say even by half, or more - it's already known that the job that us and the Saudis really want to do will require more than just missiles. As LG said, we are addicted to war. Even a no vote from the house might not mean much, but it would at least make a statement to the biggest addicts that much of America would rather be clean of it, which, to political consciousnesses, might have some weight.

And one last thing (as I just can't bring myself to be either pithy or glib on matters of great significance) - in thinking more about the notion of credibility that comes up in the defensing of this resolution, it seems to me that the type being spoken of surrounding the matters at hand is a pretty well antiquated one that matters far more to certain global citizenries who still hold an awesome, idealized vision of America's role as a force of good than has any real bearing on high-level geopolitical maneuvering. For what credibility is really left amongst world leaders given our insolvency, distrust (even of allies as Snowden leaks have shown), domestic and diplomatic corruption, and fumbling military stratagems over the last half-century? And now, as the topper, our Nobel Peace Prize winning President is willing to go over the head of the UN - our precious UN! - for what? To blow up (or more likely steal) some gas off a third-rate dictator in a shit-hole relic-state? That, friends, is far more incredible.

Hell, even the antichrist himself, George W Bush put together a dummy presentation to get a gold sticker from the UN and I think Will Ferrell got something from the Nobel people just for making fun of that guy.

we did nothing for two years, and you think this is some way for us to get in there and set up contracts? no, what changed is the chemical weapon action. if this was about money and oil, we wouldve been in there two years ago before economy was destroyed. i dont think anyone besides mccain wants in there longterm

also, every nation spies on every nation, even allies. i'm not sure where your 'distrust' angle comes from, to be quite honest.

So this is what happens:
1. US launches missile strike at Damascus
2. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah retaliate against Israel and US forces already in the region
3. Israel retaliates
4. All hell breaks loose in regional war

Fuck credibility. I'll take my chances by not attacking and not starting World War 3.

Well, fuck man, we had to let at least one or two other crises dissipate before we could get to Syria. Even most addicts know how not to OD. And as far as McCain goes, he's the only one batshit enough to preach it. I truly don't know how someone who follows politics so closely can so eagerly lap up face value commentary scripted for public consumption.

And I don't know, a ten year clusterfuck war based purely on lies? Not exactly a trustbuilder.

i dont see the similarities between the environment around iraq and syria. we actually seem to have a real media this time around, and people against the action aren't being castigated as un-american. also, that was a full-out war, this is a limited strike.

pacino wrote:do we think this will stop them from using chemical weapons again? before mccain added in that horrible caveat about the goal being overthrow, i was for this if the former was the goal. i might be for it if this will make a difference? i guess it's about being punitive more than accomplishing a goal, but do we do a strike based on that? boy i dont know.

i see what you mean about changing things there.

We don't even know for sure who used the weapons, which is the other problem. When you hear things like the devices looked homemade, it really makes you wonder

karn wrote:Not only do we want it, Saudi Arabia wants it and their wealth and assets make them the leader of leaders here. Kerry in fact stated as much at the hearing - that the Arab League is hurling money at us to go all the way with this.

i missed the kerry hearing(s), where/what did he say about this?

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:do we think this will stop them from using chemical weapons again? before mccain added in that horrible caveat about the goal being overthrow, i was for this if the former was the goal. i might be for it if this will make a difference? i guess it's about being punitive more than accomplishing a goal, but do we do a strike based on that? boy i dont know.

i see what you mean about changing things there.

We don't even know for sure who used the weapons, which is the other problem. When you hear things like the devices looked homemade, it really makes you wonder

everywhere is someone's home

td11 wrote:

karn wrote:Not only do we want it, Saudi Arabia wants it and their wealth and assets make them the leader of leaders here. Kerry in fact stated as much at the hearing - that the Arab League is hurling money at us to go all the way with this.

i missed the kerry hearing(s), where/what did he say about this?

Then let the Saudis do it.

It was all over the news yesterday

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/0 ... 68087.html

thanks

"Some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost. That's how dedicated they are to this."

But he stressed: "Obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it, but they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done."

the full quote is much more reserved than i thought