Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.
Who is Herb Tarlek?
You guys make me feel so old and sad for you. WKRP was a show in the late 70's early 80's. Herb was a skeezy fast talker salesman. Totally can see him as a politician.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4
I knew I was showing my age with that reference.
pretty sure wocky's older than both of you. but in my case, yeah, i just dont know old people ****
He's friends with Bruce Springsteen.
----First, Brian Lewis no longer has any confidentiality obligation to Newscorp or Roger Ailes because of the false and malicious statements made by Fox to date. Second, Roger Ailes and Newscorp have a lot more to fear from Brian Lewis telling the truth about them than Brian Lewis has to fear from Roger Ailes and his toadies telling lies about Brian Lewis."----
Cory Booker, Steve Lonagan on gay rumors around Booker.
Donald Rumsfeld said...ok wait.. he actually frikkin said...ready?...Obama has failed to justify striking against Syria
Mr lied into Iraq. Balls? Does this guy have giant balls? No. Go back couple inches. He's just an *******.
Obama has failed to justify striking against Syria, Bush failed to justify striking against Iraq.
It's not like they're mutually exclusive.
He's still a hypocrite, though.
In other words, he isn't as good at lying as he is.
“One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto scheduled to air later Wednesday, as quoted by The Hill.
Um. Okay. Our national interest? How about not allowing a government to use chemical weapons on its own people? I think we might have an interest in not allowing that. Though granted, we never did much for Darfur. Still, I guess this doesn't compare to weapons of mass destruction. Except, one could argue we are seeing mass destruction in the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people, and I would think we would have an interest in stopping those weapons from being used again, lest there is even the remote possibility they could be used against us or our allies. Obviously intervention should be a last resort, but let's be clear: We have a heck of a better reason for going in, if we do, than we did when Rumsfeld was around.
That's not in our national interest, that's in the Syrian people's interest ( allegedly ).
Our national interest would arguably involve not getting into another military quagmire and then paying for it with more "austerity" ( snatching from the poor and middle class ). And whatever happened to democracy?
"About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war." - Reuters
Under what circumstance is anyone talking about a "quagmire?" The most most extreme action under consideration is a limited strike against Assad's military assets that doesn't even have the objective of destabilizing his government, let alone unseating the man. This is much less the Iraq War than the Israeli strike against the Osirak nuclear plant.
"No one ever talks about it. They just do it."
How does one "not allow a government to use chemical weapons"?
So what's the point?
How does this conspiratorial, unattributed quote even apply here? What is it supposed to mean?
In fact, in every instance where there's been a public justification for military action, officials have been pretty forthright about the level of US engagement in the conflict. For all the lies and dissembling about why the Iraq War needed to happen, the Bush administration was unambiguous about it's aim to oust Saddam and establish a Western democratic model in its place. Indeed, their clarity on this point was half of what made the abject failure that followed so embarrassing for them. Even in Vietnam, the escalation from embedded advisers to direct conflict was made explicit in the wake of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
More specific to this case, this conflict has been running for over two years now. Throughout, the most dominant feature of the Obama administration's response has been their hesitance do anything at all. Up until a few weeks ago, even their non-military support for the Syrian rebels was being lambasted as extremely diffident. The situation has only deteriorated since then. So what exactly is your argument? They've just been pretending all this time, as a cover for their extreme blood lust? Because what makes the most sense is that Obama is and remains deeply unenthusiastic about military engagement in Syria, and has no motive for expanding the conflict in the way you're suggesting.
The point is to discourage the use of chemical weapons through graded escalation in retaliatory measures. If they want less US involvement, they will scale back their use of these agents in favor of conventional weaponry. If they expand their use of chemical weaponry, they will understand that they might expect even greater US action, just as their present attack led to the contemplation of this otherwise improbable strike. It's not really complicated.
It underlines the absolutely accurate impression that conflicts involving chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons have a different character than those that do not. Mostly because there is a dramatically enlarged potential for collateral damage.
No one ever suggests getting into a quagmire. They use different words. Here are some examples:
The point is to discourage the use of chemical weapons through graded escalation in retaliatory measures.
If they expand their use of chemical weaponry, they will understand that they might expect even greater US action
Now, throw this rampant control-freakism into a pot together with the opposition refusing to back down, add a dash of denial and immunity from consequences, stir, and see what happens. Don't worry - it won't be a problem as long as we remember to use the right words.
What the US needs to do is step back, and let the UN deal with this mess. We don't need to be getting involved, and we certainly don't need to be out in front. Obama needs to let this one go.
We need to get the hell out of everyone else's business.
We can't solve our own problems, much less those in other countries.
And if the word around the international press is "mean old America won't help us"...whatever. It's better than "epic fail meddlesome America trying to be the world's cops...again."
I'd agree, if it weren't for the fact that as long as Russia is on the Security Council, the UN won't do jack, because Russia will veto anything that would harm it's good buddy Assad.
Then that can be the lesson about the toothless nature of the UN. I don't think that's a good enough reason for us to get involved.
Not to mention, I don't see any actual good coming from US strikes. What we do will be limited, it won't be enough to actually effect change. Lots of risk here, no upside. Obama needs to just let it go.
What exactly are you talking about? You seem to miss the fact that no side of this conflict wants it to escalate. Israel has already made several bombing raids in Syria. No one is retaliating, nor is anyone even bringing it up. Whereas even Iran, Assad's most ardent international ally, has vocally condemned the use of chemical weapons by the regime.
Your argument also falls apart in that there's no real obligation to escalate. The US has specifically declined giving assurances it would permanently or even meaningfully degrade Assad's ability to use chemical weapons in the future. There has only been talk of creating one-time retaliatory consequences for his one-time use. Repeated use neither necessitates a larger response, nor necessarily a repeated response of any kind at all. And at very worst, lobbing missiles into the middle of an ongoing civil war can't really be classified as a "quagmire" since the only thing one has to do to disengage is stop firing. The extremely limited nature of the goal really precludes potential "loss of face" that could increase the temptation for continued or ramped up involvement.
My argument is rooted in the actual observed behavior of the relevant parties. Yours are fantasies lifted out of a Ron Paul newsletter.
While I don't necessarily support U.S. intervention because it could easily make things worse (not for the U.S.; the suggestion that there will ever be an invasion is ridiculous), classifying the use of poisonous gas as a "red line" that cannot be crossed without retaliation is not exactly an extremist stance. These things have effectively been banned since the 1920's and most countries have destroyed their stockpiles or are in the process of destroying them.
It's not an extremist stance, but it's a check that you better be prepared to cash. And a few token cruise missiles doesn't fit the bill. You don't say something like that unless you have a comprehensive strategy in place and are prepared to back those words up with serious action.
Since clearly that was never the case here, it was mistake to issue that statement.
How would it become a quagmire?
Also, according to the latest NBC poll, about 44% support military intervention in Syria. And when it's asked if the support military intervention that only involved air strikes, that number rises to 50%.
It is in our national interest, as well as a humanitarian interest. And with no boots on the ground, how can it become a quagmire?
If anything, I'm worried we don't go all the way, and only do a puny strike and call it an intervention. We need to have a forceful, strong strike that really cripples the Assad regime's military. If not, the region and the world will worsen.
How is this in US interests? What do you hope to achieve, and by what means do you plan to achieve it?