PDA

View Full Version : We're All Syrian Rebels Now!



AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 04:12 PM
Your opinions on our military involvement in Syria?

efmbman
08-31-2013, 04:26 PM
We should stay out of it. It is their problem, not ours.

RFScott
08-31-2013, 04:35 PM
It would be nice to not have yet another protracted conflict in the Middle East. I just saw that President Obama will be making an address on the Syria situation at 1:15 eastern....standby to standby...

imnohero
08-31-2013, 04:40 PM
I guess what I want to know is what "compelling national interest" would justify military intervention? I can't think of one that is important enough to get involved.

efmbman
08-31-2013, 04:41 PM
It would be nice to not have yet another protracted conflict in the Middle East. I just saw that President Obama will be making an address on the Syria situation at 1:15 eastern....standby to standby...

He is trapped now, and he earned it. He made the "don't cross the red line" threat... then they crossed it... now what? The worst part is that he will not pay the price for poor diplomacy - our troops will.

RFScott
08-31-2013, 04:51 PM
He is trapped now, and he earned it. He made the "don't cross the red line" threat... then they crossed it... now what? The worst part is that he will not pay the price for poor diplomacy - our troops will.

Very true. Assad (or someone in Syria) called his bluff and now he is going to have to follow through with punitive action or risk living up to the cries of him being soft. It will be interesting to see if Syria follows through with their threat to attack Israel, should the U.S. proceed with strikes.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 05:11 PM
Very true. Assad (or someone in Syria) called his bluff and now he is going to have to follow through with punitive action or risk living up to the cries of him being soft. It will be interesting to see if Syria follows through with their threat to attack Israel, should the U.S. proceed with strikes.

What's worse, I'm pretty sure he'll just ignore The Congress entirely, knowing full well they will stop this cold or at least defer it until most of the conflict is being wrapped up. This would be one of those situations where I don't mind seeing politicians be obstinate, even if it's not their ideologies driving the bus. He'll do the usual antics, he'll go in anyways and by the time Congress threatens the purse strings, our involvement will have so much momentum that it wouldn't be politically expedient for those obstinate types to vote for that, only the ideologues will vote. Reminds me of somewhere else we were recently!

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 05:44 PM
This is a pretty good article on the issue and I would be surprised if we do anything more than cruise missile strikes against their air defense system and perhaps a bombing campaign to take out their aircraft inventory.



Tripping on His Own Red Line?

The New York Times

August 31, 2013
DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — IT started with just 20 words, intended to keep Barack Obama out of a war. The tens of thousands dying in Syria was a global tragedy, he told reporters a year ago, when the worst horrors were still months away, but as commander in chief he had to focus on American strategic interests and could not intervene in every humanitarian tragedy around the world.

Then he offered his one caveat. “A red line for us,” he said, “is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

A year later, a president famously inclined to disentangle himself from the Middle East now finds himself trapped by that seemingly simple declaration. To do nothing in the face of images of children killed by poison gas would cripple his credibility in the last three years of his presidency. As Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday, in making the case for a military strike, “it matters if nothing is done,” not least because of the signal it sends to the Iranians, the North Koreans and others who are measuring Mr. Obama’s willingness to enforce other red lines on far worse weapons. For those countries, it remains an open question — even after the drone strikes against terrorists and cyberattacks on nuclear facilities — if a president elected to get America out of wars is willing to take the huge risks of enforcing his lines in the sand.

Yet the sharply limited goals Mr. Obama has described in explaining his rationale for taking military action now — “a shot across the bow” to halt future chemical attacks, he told PBS — pose risks of their own. If President Bashar al-Assad emerges from a few days of Tomahawk missile barrages relatively unscathed, he will be able to claim that he faced down not only his domestic opponents but the United States, which he has charged is the secret hand behind the uprising.

In the words of one recently departed senior adviser to Mr. Obama, “the worst outcome would be making Assad look stronger.”

How did Mr. Obama find himself in this trap? Partly, it was an accident of history: in the early, heady days of the Arab uprisings, no one bet that Mr. Assad would survive this long, in a country where his Alawite sect is a minority.

But there is an argument that Mr. Obama’s own caution about foreign interventions put him in this box. Horrific as the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack was, it was no more horrific than the conventional attacks that caused the deaths of 100,000 Syrians. Those prompted only a minimal American response — international condemnations, some sporadic arms shipments for a ragtag group of rebels, and an understandable reluctance by an American president to get on the same side of the civil war as Al Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Now the crossing of the red line has forced Mr. Obama’s hand. He says he is intervening to stop the use of a specific weapon whose use in World War I shocked the world. But he is not intervening to stop the mass killing, or to remove the man behind those attacks. “This is not like the Bush decision in 2003,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said on Thursday. “That intervention was aimed at regime change. This is designed to restore an international norm” against the use of poison gases.

It is a major difference. But the limitation on the use of force may also prove a paralyzing one, undercutting the long-term success of the application of American firepower. That has been the chief critique of those who argue that the only thing worse than getting America entangled in another Arab uprising whose inner dynamics we barely understand is to get involved in one and make no difference. “The argument has been that you can do a strike, call it a day, and say, ‘We taught them a lesson,’ ” said Eliot A. Cohen, a Johns Hopkins professor of strategic studies who wrote “Supreme Command,” about the uneasy relationship between presidents and the militaries they direct. “I fear it will be a symbolic use of power,” added Mr. Cohen, who served as a counselor to Condoleezza Rice when she was secretary of state.

MR. OBAMA does not seem to share the same fear, or at least he does not give voice to that concern. He told his staff during recent Situation Room meetings as American naval and air power was moved into the eastern Mediterranean that no United States intervention would alter the long-term balance of power in the Syrian civil war. That was the bitter lesson of the Iraq and Afghan wars for Mr. Obama: any American president who thinks that, by dint of force or example, he can change the nature of societies is bound for a comeuppance. For him, that was the fatal flaw of the George W. Bush presidency, an unquestioning belief that once America defeats a dictator, a newly freed populace will step in to shape the wreckage into a country more in the American image.

That was a bad bet in Iraq and a worse one, Mr. Obama has argued, in Syria. It explains why, when he justified the Libya intervention in 2011 on humanitarian grounds, he was quick to explain that the United States could not move to oust every despot — only the ones, he seemed to suggest, who could be ousted with minimal risks to Americans.

But Syria looks nothing like Libya. It cannot be won from the air, or with missile strikes. Thus Mr. Obama’s insistence that any action in Syria has to be divorced from the civil war that has torn the country to shreds. Instead, the president wants to fight on territory more directly linked to American interests: the notion that once weapons of mass destruction are used in ordinary conflict, the potential for disaster — for America, and certainly for its allies and partners on Syria’s borders — rises dramatically.

That is an easier policy to explain to a war-weary public and offers a way for the president to exercise a version of his “light footprint” strategy (the fight-at-a-distance strategy behind drones and cyberweapons) without getting mired in another Middle East nightmare.

The problem, of course, is that many conflicts don’t lend themselves to light footprints. Mr. Assad has already survived in office for two years since the president declared that he must go. And at some point, it becomes hard to separate the use of chemical weapons from the dictator who, as an American intelligence briefer told reporters on Friday, sees chemical weapons as just one more bullet in his arsenal.

“A lot of people, including some in the administration, think that the chemical warfare argument is an excuse to get Assad himself,” said Christopher R. Hill, Mr. Obama’s first ambassador to Iraq, and now dean of the Korbel School at the University of Denver. Among them, without doubt, is Mr. Assad himself, who is unlikely to reconsider the value of international treaties.

The chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 06:07 PM
Nice!

He just punted the ball over to Congress.

Smart, now he can blame them.

USMC0341
08-31-2013, 06:17 PM
Nice!

He just punted the ball over to Congress.

Smart, now he can blame them.

For a second I thought he grew a set of balls... Then he went from tough guy to "but I won't make the call congress will eventually"

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 06:32 PM
I'd really hate to see us get dragged into that conflict but some of these events that are taking place now will shape what that region will look like in the future.

It's hard to tell what impact, if any, our lack of influence will mean to the region in the long term.

Gonzo432
08-31-2013, 06:35 PM
Nice!

He just punted the ball over to Congress.

Smart, now he can blame them.

President Obama turns to Congress to OK strike against Syria

He must've seen enough of the clips from 07-08 where him and VP BiteMe were significantly on the other side of the issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/president-obama-says-us-must-act-on-syria/

I voted "Batsh!t Insane". If that's a choice, I always pick Batsh!t Insane.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 06:43 PM
President Obama turns to Congress to OK strike against Syria

He must've seen enough of the clips from 07-08 where him and VP BiteMe were significantly on the other side of the issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/president-obama-says-us-must-act-on-syria/

I voted "Batsh!t Insane". If that's a choice, I always pick Batsh!t Insane.

I think it is called guano for some reason. Bat Guano Insane doesn't have the same ring to it, huh?

Gonzo432
08-31-2013, 06:55 PM
I think it is called guano for some reason. Bat Guano Insane doesn't have the same ring to it, huh?

That's why I only vote Batsh!t Insane. Ok, Batsh!t Crazy is good too.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 07:21 PM
President Obama turns to Congress to OK strike against Syria

He must've seen enough of the clips from 07-08 where him and VP BiteMe were significantly on the other side of the issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/president-obama-says-us-must-act-on-syria/

I voted "Batsh!t Insane". If that's a choice, I always pick Batsh!t Insane.

This made me wonder if there's hope for this one yet, but I have a sinking feeling, with A CR on the horizon, this may be capitalizing on an opportunity to demagogue this, stir the sympathy marketing campaign a bit longer, then paint Congress as inept if they fail to take any significant action. I hope I'm being too cynical.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-31-2013, 10:04 PM
Ok, Obama's been talking about military action for over a week and now we might wait several more weeks. You think Syria's had time to move/hide their critical assets? Is this really worth pissing away $1.5 million cruise missiles? What a pointless endeavor, all so Obama can back up his stupid "red line" comment.

Vrake
08-31-2013, 10:47 PM
WE can't win either way. We strike (and an already said lame one) and the world will get pissed. We don't and it will somehow become our fault for not doing anything.

My big question is if we strike and topple Assadhole what happens to the chemical weapons? There are plenty of opposition fighters who hate ours and the Israelis guts. I hate to say it but at least right now whoever is using them is keeping it local.

Short of going boots on ground (NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!) to find and secure the chemical weapons we are pissing in the wind.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 11:06 PM
WE can't win either way. We strike (and an already said lame one) and the world will get pissed. We don't and it will somehow become our fault for not doing anything.

My big question is if we strike and topple Assadhole what happens to the chemical weapons? There are plenty of opposition fighters who hate ours and the Israelis guts. I hate to say it but at least right now whoever is using them is keeping it local.

Short of going boots on ground (NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!) to find and secure the chemical weapons we are pissing in the wind.

I don't think we have a chance of taking out their chemical weapons stock piles even with a prolonged bombing campaign.

Sending in troops of any kind would lead to a prolonged stay. I'm for sitting this one out for now.

Obama has effectively punted the ball to congress so who knows what will happen. I'm looking forward to see who makes the rounds on Meet The Press and Face the Nation tomorrow.

Vrake
08-31-2013, 11:13 PM
Obama has effectively punted the ball to congress so who knows what will happen. I'm looking forward to see who makes the rounds on Meet The Press and Face the Nation tomorrow.

You are a better politico then I am. I prefer to read what they said after the fact from both sides of the media (fox,msnbc, cnn, drudge etc) the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Weekend mornings for me is the EPL. Liverpool vs Man U followed by Arsenal vs Tottenham will be this guy tm.

AJBIGJ
08-31-2013, 11:19 PM
I don't think we have a chance of taking out their chemical weapons stock piles even with a prolonged bombing campaign.

Sending in troops of any kind would lead to a prolonged stay. I'm for sitting this one out for now.

Obama has effectively punted the ball to congress so who knows what will happen. I'm looking forward to see who makes the rounds on Meet The Press and Face the Nation tomorrow.

If I were to play the law of averages, putting it on Congress was more of a decision based on politics and the upcoming CR then it is a newfound desire to play nice with the Constitution. If he hypes this enough, I think he feels that will give him better leverage to get every penny he asks for. I do applaud that he's pursuing this the right way (for the time being). I'm not sure if it will stay that way if the bully pulpit proves insufficient to coerce the Congress into deciding in his favor. I think your red line article was dead on. I think shifting the decision back to the Congress is a mechanism of shifting the blame for our reluctance to enter into Syria.

sandsjames
08-31-2013, 11:20 PM
You are a better politico then I am. I prefer to read what they said after the fact from both sides of the media (fox,msnbc, cnn, drudge etc) the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Weekend mornings for me is the EPL. Liverpool vs Man U followed by Arsenal vs Tottenham will be this guy tm.

Love that NBCsport is showing so much EPL. Now back on topic

Absinthe Anecdote
08-31-2013, 11:27 PM
You are a better politico then I am. I prefer to read what they said after the fact from both sides of the media (fox,msnbc, cnn, drudge etc) the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Weekend mornings for me is the EPL. Liverpool vs Man U followed by Arsenal vs Tottenham will be this guy tm.

I think the most likely scenario will be cruise missile strikes followed by limited air strikes.

However, there is a danger in waiting too long. If the conflict gets worse and they use chemical weapons on a larger scale it could motivate the UN to pass a resolution and we could get dragged into it to a greater extent than we bargained for.

Vrake
08-31-2013, 11:36 PM
I think the most likely scenario will be cruise missile strikes followed by limited air strikes.

However, there is a danger in waiting too long. If the conflict gets worse and they use chemical weapons on a larger scale it could motivate the UN to pass a resolution and we could get dragged into it to a greater extent than we bargained for.


I think we have waited to long. That and reading the news advisors are saying what kind of targets will be hit. Hmm Syria is not a big country won't take them long to disperse stuff and I am sure they have by now.

If the UN passes a resolution then it's on ALL members to contribute. That will never happen IMHO. China and Russia will veto every time if nothing else to watch us squirm.

USMC0341
08-31-2013, 11:39 PM
I liked how the UK was all you heard about earlier this week, acting as though they would go it alone if need be, then it was uh, nevermind we aren't as abhorred by the atrocities as we thought we were (go get 'em Barack)

Gonzo432
09-01-2013, 01:26 AM
I think we have waited to long. That and reading the news advisors are saying what kind of targets will be hit. Hmm Syria is not a big country won't take them long to disperse stuff and I am sure they have by now.

If the UN passes a resolution then it's on ALL members to contribute. That will never happen IMHO. China and Russia will veto every time if nothing else to watch us squirm.

With the ex-KGB Chief and the Chi-Coms on Assad's side, the UN Security Counsel couldn't even send a strongly worded memo. I think the Ban Ki Moon might have unfriended Assad on Facebook, that's about it.

The Cooler
09-03-2013, 09:49 PM
it just doesn't make sense at this point how we can speak with such certainty regarding how limited our involvement will be. defies logic.

Mr. Squid
09-03-2013, 10:45 PM
What on this godforsaken mudball Earth is the point of entangling ourselves in the Syrian quagmire? So a rebel group can replace a brutal dictator they don't like with another brutal dictator they do like, only until they don't like him anymore, then overthrow him in turn? Chemical weapons or not, there *is* no right side in this. If our leadership orders strikes, I'm not re-upping my contract next year.
http://www.findwebapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/middle-finger-emoticons-in-fb-chat.jpg

efmbman
09-03-2013, 10:49 PM
Has anyone seen a realistic national interest we would have for getting involved? I have not, but I am more than willing to hear what anyone has to say about it.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 11:20 PM
Has anyone seen a realistic national interest we would have for getting involved? I have not, but I am more than willing to hear what anyone has to say about it.

Even if there was a national "interest" that shouldn't be enough to get involved in anything. It should be about national security, not interest.

efmbman
09-03-2013, 11:23 PM
Even if there was a national "interest" that shouldn't be enough to get involved in anything. It should be about national security, not interest.

Good point. I saw some tweets earlier that said members of Congress are saying it would be worse if we did not get involved. I'm going to to need some help with that rationale as well. I get Kerry - as SECSTATE it is his job to publicly support POTUS and his policies. I may not agree with it, but at least he is loyal.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 11:25 PM
Good point. I saw some tweets earlier that said members of Congress are saying it would be worse if we did not get involved. I'm going to to need some help with that rationale as well. I get Kerry - as SECSTATE it is his job to publicly support POTUS and his policies. I may not agree with it, but at least he is loyal.

Yeah, they're in a tough situation, especially since England gave him the middle finger. I think that as long as they keep it in their borders then we just let them deal with it. They are no threat to us.

efmbman
09-03-2013, 11:34 PM
Yeah, they're in a tough situation, especially since England gave him the middle finger. I think that as long as they keep it in their borders then we just let them deal with it. They are no threat to us.

Agreed. Some are claiming that to take no action would strengthen Iran and Hezbollah. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But again... does that make it a national security issue for the USA? I don't think so.

This should go into the lessons learned book under the heading: Don't make threats you are unable or unwilling to follow through with.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 11:36 PM
Agreed. Some are claiming that to take no action would strengthen Iran and Hezbollah. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But again... does that make it a national security issue for the USA? I don't think so.

This should go into the lessons learned book under the heading: Don't make threats you are unable or unwilling to follow through with.

It's funny (not haha) how things are looked at when a new party is in power. Obama put himself in the exact situation that Bush was criticized for. Now he has to find a way to dig himself out of it.

efmbman
09-03-2013, 11:39 PM
It's funny (not haha) how things are looked at when a new party is in power. Obama put himself in the exact situation that Bush was criticized for. Now he has to find a way to dig himself out of it.

Indeed. I forgot to ask earlier - were you surprised with the result of the British vote?

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 11:44 PM
Indeed. I forgot to ask earlier - were you surprised with the result of the British vote?

Ummm...a little I guess. I think it's a good thing for them, though, in the short term. They realized that this was a no win situation for us, so they didn't want to be part of it.

Stalwart
09-04-2013, 02:09 AM
It's funny (not haha) how things are looked at when a new party is in power. Obama put himself in the exact situation that Bush was criticized for. Now he has to find a way to dig himself out of it.

Very valid point. There is a clip of then Senator Biden saying that unilateral action by the President (George W. Bush) without the consent of Congress would be cause of him to lead an effort to impeach. Not saying if I am a D or an R but 6 years later Vice President Biden was saying that President Obama had the Constitutional authority to do it. It raises interesting arguments and rationale, but politics isn't always about being rational.

Max Power
09-04-2013, 03:00 AM
I'm glad our politicians are taking this seriously.

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/alexkantrowitz/files/2013/09/Twitter-252x300.png

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 03:04 AM
Your opinions on our military involvement in Syria?

The whole idea behind this attack is completely void of logic to begin with. What is the goal? So we launch cruise missiles and drop some bombs on them...what does that accomplish? Both Assad and the "rebels" a.k.a Al-Qaeda-ish Islamic militants suck, but do we really want to help EITHER of them?

None of this has anything to do with helping the Syrians considering there has been 100,000+ killed since this started...but we're all the sudden up in arms when 1500 get gassed?

400,000 killed in Darfur with another 2.5 million displaced, and we're actually going to pretend to care about 1500?

Not to mention, both Syria and Iran are promising to attack Israel if we attack Syria. Are we really willing to start a regional war so Obama can save face?

sandsjames
09-04-2013, 12:47 PM
The whole idea behind this attack is completely void of logic to begin with. What is the goal? So we launch cruise missiles and drop some bombs on them...what does that accomplish? Both Assad and the "rebels" a.k.a Al-Qaeda-ish Islamic militants suck, but do we really want to help EITHER of them?

None of this has anything to do with helping the Syrians considering there has been 100,000+ killed since this started...but we're all the sudden up in arms when 1500 get gassed?

400,000 killed in Darfur with another 2.5 million displaced, and we're actually going to pretend to care about 1500?

Not to mention, both Syria and Iran are promising to attack Israel if we attack Syria. Are we really willing to start a regional war so Obama can save face?

Your mention of AQ brings up a great point. If we attack the government we are, in turn, aiding AQ, who is fighting with the rebels. Is that something we really want to be doing?

efmbman
09-04-2013, 02:39 PM
I've read estimates that such an attack would cost about $600 million. Does anyone else think it is odd that we are furloughing DOD employees, slashing budgets with the sequester, yet somehow we have $600 million lying around to strike a country that has done nothing to us?

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 03:13 PM
I've read estimates that such an attack would cost about $600 million. Does anyone else think it is odd that we are furloughing DOD employees, slashing budgets with the sequester, yet somehow we have $600 million lying around to strike a country that has done nothing to us?

I haven't a single doubt that, in addition to hurt pride over the "red line" comment, this is a maneuver to squeeze more money in the next CR (which is very soon) and have yet another bargaining chip on the table to scare us out of our tax dollars (keeping in mind discussions of "Defunding Obamacare" are also on the table). Obama needs cannon fodder this go around to slap the R's over the face with and intimidate them out of every tax dollar he can, especially with his pet project part of the discussion. A lot of the more hawkish R's just follow suit because quite frankly I doubt if they have ever seen an opportunity to go to war that they didn't like.

garhkal
09-04-2013, 07:17 PM
We should stay out of it. It is their problem, not ours.

This. But while i agree doing noting after we made the 'redline' is going to hurt us, i feel doing strikes just to 'punish', is also going to hurt us (Damned if we do, damned if we dont).

Personally this is why i HATE our current govt's way of things. Rather than how WW2 through vietnam handled things (when we actually DID the military action that was needed, THEN let the press know of it), we seem to spend more time consulting every damn armchair quarter back and press junket, before we even have a plan of action for what to do. And the stupidity of that imo should be self evident (as its now being reported by many sources that cause of our warnings and ditherings, Assad has moved his stockpiles and put civilians into the areas they used to be)..


For a second I thought he grew a set of balls... Then he went from tough guy to "but I won't make the call congress will eventually"

As both those on Fox and HLN seem to say he is only doing this (consulting congress) to cover his ass.



This should go into the lessons learned book under the heading: Don't make threats you are unable or unwilling to follow through with.

Parenting 101 should have taught Barrack that.



None of this has anything to do with helping the Syrians considering there has been 100,000+ killed since this started...but we're all the sudden up in arms when 1500 get gassed?

400,000 killed in Darfur with another 2.5 million displaced, and we're actually going to pretend to care about 1500?


It is screwed up how we seemed to not give a rats behind while thousands upon thousands of civilians got killed right up till just over a thousand got gassed, and STILL ignore Darfur. But look at Iraq. We seemed to not give much of a hoot there while saddam killed his own people by the hundreds, until he gassed the kurds up north.


I've read estimates that such an attack would cost about $600 million. Does anyone else think it is odd that we are furloughing DOD employees, slashing budgets with the sequester, yet somehow we have $600 million lying around to strike a country that has done nothing to us?

No different than we can always seem to find a spare 200 million or so lying around when some other country gets hit by a natural disaster, all at the same time telling our own citizens "sorry FEMA is running out of funds"..

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 08:53 PM
Looks like the Senate can't get this done soon enough to protect dear leader.


Senate Breaks Own Rules in Rush to Vote on Syria War

Senate Democratic leadership tossed aside the rules for moving legislation with regard to the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria, angering some Republicans and creating confusion on Capitol Hill in the runup to the war vote.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a modified war resolution Wednesday afternoon by vote of 10-7 with one member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), voting present. The committee's action allows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring the measure to the floor as early as Monday, following a break for the Jewish holidays. That would allow a vote by the full Senate as soon as Wednesday, giving the Senate a chance to pass a war resolution before the House has a chance to craft and pass a resolution of its own.


But some GOP Senate offices are upset with what they see as a rush by Democratic leadership to pass the war authorization outside the rules that govern how legislation goes through the committee process.


“This is a rush to war behind closed doors,” one senior GOP Senate aide said. “We were told there was a need to have a thoughtful and public debate about how this nation goes to war, but this seems to be about simply getting a resolution done to cover the president.”


According to Senate rules, hearings should be notified seven days in advance, business meetings should be notified at least three days in advance, and members should have 24 hours to consider legislative text before having to vote on it. A spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) pointed out that the chairman and ranking member of the committee have the discretion to call a business meeting earlier if they both agree.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/04/senate-breaks-own-rules-in-rush-to-vote-on-syria-war.html

Bunch
09-04-2013, 10:27 PM
Funny to read here conservative out conservative one another, is like a pissing contest to see who can say the most outlandish unverifiable fallacy that they have learned today in the republican bubble....

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 10:33 PM
Funny to read here conservative out conservative one another, is like a pissing contest to see who can say the most outlandish unverifiable fallacy that they have learned today in the republican bubble....

Quick question, how would one know something's a fallacy if it's also unverifiable?

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 10:41 PM
All fallacies are unverifiable.

But not everything unverifiable is a fallacy.

True, the latter portion being of my concern.

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 10:52 PM
All fallacies are unverifiable.

But not everything unverifiable is a fallacy.

I should caveat this a bit, an assertion cannot truly be labeled as a "fallacy" until it is proven to be false, so in this sense nothing unverifiable is truly a fallacy!:naughty:

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 11:26 PM
No...a fallacy need not be proven false, it merely needs to be false.
If it is false, it can not be proven true...or verified. Thus all fallacies are unverifiable. Some are verifiably not true.

The earth being flat is a fallacy..it has always been a fallacy even when it was widely believed to be true. Even when believed true, it was unverifiable.

It is certainly still unverifiable, because it is, in fact, verifiably not true.

Unverifiable assertion would be the term I would use in this context, not accurately labeled to be fallacious until it is also proven to be false, and the fact that it is only false in the sense that it has not occurred yet, which does not necessarily equate to never. In the context of the discussion, we are referring to statements based on opinions that may or may not actually include factual information, meaning that the supposition may also be fallacious, but until proven so, remains an unknown variable. Something that directly disproves the assertions made will make the label of "fallacious", until then, adding the label of a "fallacy" remains yet another unverifiable assertion...:bee:

grimreaper
09-04-2013, 11:37 PM
Unverifiable assertion would be the term I would use in this context, not accurately labeled to be fallacious until it is also proven to be false, and the fact that it is only false in the sense that it has not occurred yet, which does not necessarily equate to never. In the context of the discussion, we are referring to statements based on opinions that may or may not actually include factual information, meaning that the supposition may also be fallacious, but until proven so, remains an unknown variable. Something that directly disproves the assertions made will make the label of "fallacious", until then, adding the label of a "fallacy" remains yet another unverifiable assertion...:bee:

Good god. I've read that 3 times and still nothing.:omfg:

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 11:40 PM
Good god. I've read that 3 times and still nothing.:omfg:

That's the beauty of silly arguments of semantics, it is truly a fine line that separates brilliance and pure and simple "WTF?"

AJBIGJ
09-04-2013, 11:45 PM
Although, I do wonder if there is a MTF record for OP's derailing their own threads, I may be in the running, if we exclude "Tak's Life Thread" at least, which never seemed to have a core topic to begin with.

Max Power
09-05-2013, 01:37 AM
Unverifiable assertion would be the term I would use in this context, not accurately labeled to be fallacious until it is also proven to be false, and the fact that it is only false in the sense that it has not occurred yet, which does not necessarily equate to never. In the context of the discussion, we are referring to statements based on opinions that may or may not actually include factual information, meaning that the supposition may also be fallacious, but until proven so, remains an unknown variable. Something that directly disproves the assertions made will make the label of "fallacious", until then, adding the label of a "fallacy" remains yet another unverifiable assertion...:bee:

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/star-trek-mind-blown.gif

Vrake
09-05-2013, 01:46 AM
Unverifiable assertion would be the term I would use in this context, not accurately labeled to be fallacious until it is also proven to be false, and the fact that it is only false in the sense that it has not occurred yet, which does not necessarily equate to never. In the context of the discussion, we are referring to statements based on opinions that may or may not actually include factual information, meaning that the supposition may also be fallacious, but until proven so, remains an unknown variable. Something that directly disproves the assertions made will make the label of "fallacious", until then, adding the label of a "fallacy" remains yet another unverifiable assertion...:bee:

You have a big cerebrum be carefull you don't grab for your chronometer next :)

AJBIGJ
09-05-2013, 01:52 AM
You have a big cerebrum be carefull you don't grab for your chronometer next :)

Next? Been there done that several times already, my wife did not enjoy when I put my considerable medulla oblongata on full display in such a public forum!

Vrake
09-05-2013, 01:55 AM
Next? Been there done that several times already, my wife did not enjoy when I put my considerable medulla oblongata on full display in such a public forum!

Fair enough just ensure you do it a punctilious degree.

Jumper5
09-05-2013, 03:03 PM
Your mention of AQ brings up a great point. If we attack the government we are, in turn, aiding AQ, who is fighting with the rebels. Is that something we really want to be doing?

Not. At. All.

Rainmaker
09-05-2013, 03:45 PM
You Know You Are a Neocon If…

You like starting wars you can’t finish.

If you do start a war you can’t finish, so what, it’s not like your kids are dying.

You think you are better than pretty much everyone else, especially poor people, who are the problem by the way.

You’ve never fought in a war, but you talk tough on Fox News.

While you parade around mainstream media as a “political strategist,” you’re actually on the payroll of Booz Allen Hamilton or some other defense/intelligence contractor.

Your name is Chris Christie.

When reading about the Revolutionary War, you find yourself sympathetic to the British cause.

The punishing amount of wedgies you received as an adolescent has made you permanently insecure and trying to act macho.

Your machismo really comes out when you have an opportunity to pick on people or nations you deem weaker than you.

You think it is “conservative” to ignore the Constitution.

Rainmaker
09-08-2013, 06:51 PM
Update: so Rainmaker just read where the epitome of personal integrity, brilliant COIN strategist and Neocon lapdog, one each, Generalismo King David Petraeus , has taken a break from his "duties" at Global Hedge fund adviser KKR, to weigh in and urge Congress to support our Lord and Savior and Commander in Chief (The Reverend Doctor Barrack Hussein Obama)'s request to start "limited" bombing of Syria.... Well that settles it Folks. There's no need for any further debate. Look for the bombing to begin sometime after Yom Kippur ends next weekend.

Max Power
09-12-2013, 02:49 AM
https://sphotos-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1175540_10151665230079072_98716789_n.jpg