Guys, what the fuck is the pushback against tangling with Syria? The line. They crossed THE LINE.

[Poll_Blind]

The President said there was a line and then today the Whitehouse said the line had been crossed.

You can't argue with The Line!

The President? Hands are tied. Blame The Line.

The Line exists so we know when somebody crosses it.

For fuck's sake: If somebody crosses the line and you don't have A Line, then it's like you...shit...it's like the old times when everyone was running around like chickens with their heads cut off and chopping down wheat with sickles and playing giant harmonicas to pass the time.

If you don't have a line, what do you have? You have a bunch of people discussing and arguing about shit, that's what.

Do we want to return to those dark days?

Discussing the merits of military action while some grizzled asshole plays "She'll be Comin' Round the Mountain" on a harmonica the size of your goddamned leg?

Really?

I didn't think so. So it's settled. End of discussion.

If you feel compelled to discuss something with your filthy bored mouths, discuss who we're going to toss the no-bid school building contracts to. We need to get those ducks lined up in a row because if we don't have those plans down, something might fuck up after we win and ruin it.

No, your Summer War this year is with Syria. Did you have some better war in mind? No? Oh color me surprised! If you don't have a better country to attack maybe you should just sit down, clam up and go back to browsing Pinterest, howsaboutthat?

PB

[onehandle]

1. Pinterest? Ooooh... Nuclear War....

http://pinterest.com/SteveCataldo/nuclear-war/

[AverageJoe90]

9. What's your point?

If you think that a full-on nuclear war is even remotely possible over Syria.....think again.....

[reusrename]

71. Once the cost/benefit analysis reveals that more profits can be had, sure. Why not?

They'll nuke us for sure. What's to stop them from making money?

[AverageJoe90]

73. It wouldn't happen with a full-scale war, though(hell, there probably wouldn't be ANY economy.). n/t

[reusrename]

74. We've passed the point where some folks think they can make money from dropping nukes.

The Bush regime tried mightily to do it, and when they were unsuccessful they tried to do it outside the chain of command. You do remember the loose nukes in Louisiana, don't you? Sorry, but I'm sure that some of those folks are still willing right now to make it happen. They just don't have the means at present.

[freshwest]

75. Minot, N.D. too... Lost for days... Forget about suitcase nukes.

[AverageJoe90]

77. I don't think so, TBH.

Now, granted, it was an extraordinarily stupid mistake that could have been quite costly had something, but I don't think there's any evidence pointing to a conspiracy....perhaps if you'd said this five years ago I might believe it, but, the truth is, I wasn't really nearly as informed as I am now.

Dubya was a fucking moron for sure, but.....at least his stupidity did have it's limits. And, frankly, let's hope someone worse doesn't ever come along.

[leftstreet]

2. American arrogance: drawing 'The Lines' around the globe n/t

[L0oniX]

28. +1

[disidoro01]

3. I was

completely against intervention in Syria until I read your post. Let's bomb some democracy into Syria!!

[Poll_Blind]

5. We are gonna....

PB

[SomethingFishy]

8. Holy shit...

That was awful.. and I didn't laugh one bit!

[MattBaggins]

12. All the members of Congress, before voting on a "Syrian Resolution"

should be forced to sit down and watch "America: World Police" at least ten times.

OK maybe not forced to sit down, they cans stand if they want.

[movonne]

57. more billions of dollars flushed down the toilet...why

can't we mind our own business...now we will have to give up our social security and medicare to finance this farce...

[lunasun]

61. "now we will have to give up our social security and medicare to finance this farce"...and

who knows what else???

[Laelth]

81. Excellent graphic. Saved for future use. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[hedgehog]

4. Unless i missed a recent report, President Obama seems to be holding the line against getting

involved in Syria any way whatsoever, so what's your complaint?

[Poll_Blind]

7. NYT: U.S. Is Said to Plan to Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels

U.S. Is Said to Plan to Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, concluding that the troops of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria have used chemical weapons against rebel forces in his country’s civil war, has decided to begin supplying the rebels for the first time with small arms and ammunition, according to American officials.

The Line.

PB

[MattBaggins]

14. What weapons manufacturers does Bill Clinton have a stake in?

Does he and Grampa McCain sit on a board together?

[bluedigger]

22. He's pretty tight with the Carlyle Group.

[Poll_Blind]

23. That's all a coincidence, whatever you're getting at. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

When Bill Clinton calls the President a "wuss" if he doesn't intervene in Syria, it's like an uncle giving you tough love about being too chicken to ask that girl out.

Do we wanna be the wallflower at Democracy's dance? Of course not!

PB

[Catherina]

26. I dunno, you tell me

and the next day, articles come out about how Obama is a WUSS for not going into Syria

and the day after that, a statement from the White House


McCain. The original PNAC candidate. What the fuck is Clinton doing pal'ing around with him like he was his new best bud? Who's running this show?

[Poll_Blind]

29. Don't you be subversive! You're subversing all over the place! This is bipartisanship! nt

PB

[MattBaggins]

31. The whole bullshit quagmire know as Iraq was an industrial size gravy spigot

The Middle East and its wars are worth Trillions.

I am certain Clinton has at least one or two investments in the war enterprise.

[Whisp]

38. those fuckers are fucking with intel. no way this is an honest appraisal of the situation

and a proper response

when those two fuckwads are involved.

I want to PUKE!

Let us not let the State Dept scandal fall off the radar. This is probably cover for that.

FUCK!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Where McCain's argument falls apart is that Clinton wasn't a Liberal.

BTW: The difference between a Liberal and a Conservative? Liberals want World Peace and Conservatives tell us who to bomb to get it.

[Laelth]

82. I agree. He WAS holding the line quite admirably.

I was quite pleased to see that, and my admiration for the President was growing significantly. Then the pressure got too great, and he had to cave. I do not blame him too much. I certainly would not want to be in his shoes.

-Laelth

[aquart]

6. Eh. Let China buy their guns.

[Poll_Blind]

11. We can't let China get in on this. Then they get the goodies. We can't let them have the goodies.

George Washington would not be lettin' China get away with the pumpkin pie on the Thanksgiving Table of the World. Or whatever, I'm not sure. Syria could be the cranberry sauce. Still...

PB

[aquart]

17. They ARE already.

China is in Iraq writing contracts for the oil. They're in Afghanistan with bulldozers. They're in Egypt. They walked over our bodies and blood to grab the position of honest broker we forfeited.

[Poll_Blind]

21. Oil is different. We shouldn't stop them. It'll probably de-commify them unintentionally.

And then we'll have won without having fired a shot...or something. I had this all worked out on a dry erase board on the floor in the living room...but my cat...

PB

[iamsdaaz]

10. thx

thanks

[uppityperson]

62. Huh?

[Poll_Blind]

15. Warren, this time it's going to be different. I'm telling you. We can change them. I can smell it

It smells like napalm in the morning!

(The OP is sarcasm, just to make it clear)

PB

[NightWatcher]

16. We are not the World's policeman

We should not spend our capital or blood in business that doesn't concern us.

Shitty things happen all over the world.

[snappyturtle]

50. I agree with you 100% but what better way than a new war front to divert

attention from the NSA/PRISM/Snowden?

[NightWatcher]

55. Oh yes, plus the MIC really wants a 20 war around Iran

Think of the money they'd make.

[Laelth]

83. Ah, but this does concern us.

We are in a proxy war with Iran. Syria is Iran's proxy. Thus, now that it appears Assad might win, we must get involved to be certain he loses (or, so our hawks tell us).

More info here, if you are interested: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

-Laelth

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. If you don't have a line, then you may have a point!

And we can't have that! What are we, fucking barbarians?



Loved your post. Brilliant!

[ManiacJoe]

19. Resources: spent vs received.

Sending the military or military supplies somewhere costs money and resources. If there is no long-term resources to be gained, the chances of resources getting spent on military action are slim regardless of the moral implications.

US Military resources are a little thin at the moment. Does Syria have anything we want?

[RC]

43. Does Syria have anything we want? Of they do.

Control of their government. Isn't that obvious by now?

[ManiacJoe]

48. What do we gain from that?

In Iraq it was the oil.

[RC]

53. Control is what we gain.

Help put the country in poverty, so it doesn't need as much oil. Besides, wars are profitable. Whatever, doesn't really matter. We are where we should not be in the first place.

That said, we stir up most of the fighting over there for fun and profit. WE also supply one or both sides with the tools needed for the fight. This needs to stop.

[Laelth]

84. We want Iran's oil.

Right now, Iran is selling their oil to China. Syria is Iran's proxy. Thus, we must take down the Syrian regime (or, so our hawks tell us). Then we can go after Iran.



-Laelth

[ManiacJoe]

102. Thanks for connecting the dots.

[Laelth]

104. Geopolitics makes my skin crawl.

That said, I am fairly confident that my explanation of our current situation in regards to Syria is correct.

For better or for worse.

-Laelth

[geckosfeet]

20. We don't need more war. We don't want more war.

[Catherina]

27. Shut up and eat your peas.

(sarcasm geckofeet. no anger directed at you just to be clear)

[totodeinhere]

24. We can say we have drawn a line. But when the line is crossed as it may have been then what we are

to do about it is the big question. We have few if any good options. On one side we have Assad backed by the Iranians and Hezbollah. On the other side we have the rebels who have been documented to have committed atrocities of their own backed by Al-Qaeda. Should we provide aid to the rebels who may well institute an anti-American regime that makes Assad look like a choir boy by comparison?

[Poll_Blind]

25. Atrocities, schmatrocities! George Washington cannibalized 2 British generals and a drummer boy.

In just one battle.

The Al-Qaeda thing...yeah, well...if the U.S. government deems it in our strategic interest to help Al-Qaeda gain a foothold in a country or even overthrow a government, it's probably because the CIA has some really good reason. Like, maybe they'll have a change of heart like Scrooge or something.

Now that I think of it, giving Stinger missiles to Al-Qaeda in Syria could wind up having the same effect as the Ghost of Christmas Past on Ebineezer Scrooge. Can we afford to miss that opportunity?



PB

[MattBaggins]

35. Interesting point on the rebel issue.

One of the biggest backers of war with Syria has been the American Religious Right. They have been chanting about "the road to Jerusalem goes through Damascus" for decades. They want this war at any cost but they will not pause to consider what the rebels will do to Syrian Christians if they take power.

They won't care really. Just as long as they force the fulfillment of a prophecy they made up.

That is the biggest reason to fear the next coming war; the religious freaks want it.

[freshwest]

76. They don't care anymore about Syrian Christians than they did Iraqi Christians. Religion is just

what they use to cover up money making.
Like Pat Robertson and his weeping on the air over alleged Christian leaders while he was making money hand over fist over those blood diamonds.

It's just the brand they sell the wars over, civil wars, culture wars, global wars. They aren't trying to save anyone's soul or bring world peace under one God. That's for the ones who are gonna kill others, get maimed and die behind all this farce.

It's a scam for the gullible, IMO. It may be hard to believe, but I support a person who enjoys a belief in their mind if it makes them happy so long as they keep in it there and don't go around harming others.

[kenny blankenship]

39. We have always been at war with Assad, despite what you may believe you've heard

about us contracting out some torture work on Al Qaeda detainees to him in the previous decade.

Assad has always been the true enemy. And Al Qaeda has always been our stalwart friend.

[eridani]

54. You're right! We have always been at war with Eastasia and allied to Eurasia

Only terrorists say that we used to be allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia.

[lunasun]

67. Curious to think that the sky is the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here....

[sibelian]

90. Terrorists and TRAITORS.

Don't forget the traitors.

[kenny blankenship]

30. The line that got crossed was that Assad started winning after a long spell of losing.

So rather than let the situation be resolved, we'll put our thumb on the scale, and probably just enough to help it continue.

Either side winning results in a bad situation from the pov of US policymakers.

Syria after Assad: probably your next Al Qaeda bedroom community and vacation destination. But we'll have stripped away the country that was Iran's traditional regional ally prior to our loss of Iraq. So we get to enjoy some payback for losing Iraq and can set up Iran for the kill. Yay! Al Qaeda types running Syria? Hey, let next decade's problems be next decade's problems!

Syria w Assad: Continues to be the sponsor of Hezbollah in Lebanon, along with Iran - and that's Bad For Israel®

So like the First Gulf War between Iraq and Iran, which had the unintended but pleasant effect of splitting OPEC solidarity and dropping the price of oil, and the other pleasant side effect of killing over a million people we don't particularly care for, we will intervene in Syria in order to keep the conflict on a boil.

Or I don't know, maybe we will push Assad out, going all in for our bestest bud, one more time. I'd like to know what we get for that, though.

[reusrename]

72. I was having deja vu over Iran/Iraq war earlier.

Didn't we arm both sides?

[L0oniX]

32. I say ...give Syria to Monstanto.

[Poll_Blind]

34. ^ This. And if Monsanto wants to patent Syrians afterward, we can expedite that. nt

PB

[L0oniX]

36. GMO their asses!

[Poll_Blind]

96. And if they want to have kids they better pony up the appropriate licensing fee.

I hear use of the Happy Birthday song costs $1,500 for a documentary and around $8k for a movie. So, somewhere around $5k for a kid?

PB

[newmember]

33. Russia is going to get deeply involved in sending weapons to the Syrian military

You think this is ugly now....just wait

[David__77]

40. I sincerely hope that Russia vetoes the US decision.

Russia certainly has in its ability to prevent US escalation. That would help force a peaceful resolution.

[newmember]

42. The administration can do this without UN approval

[David__77]

45. I refer to a military veto, not a diplomatic one.

I refer to power projection, not voting. Of course anyone can do anything without the approval of some body or another.

[newmember]

51. Understood but I don't see Obama backing down on this

He is going to arm the rebels and Russia will do the same.

I can not see Russia allowing Assad to lose his country if the U.S gets this deeply involved
in this civil war.

[David__77]

52. It's about more than Syria, obviously.

I'm sick of the elites pushing these things, while the large majority oppose it. Nearly 70% of people oppose arming the terrorists, but of course they're doing it anyway. Where do they think these arms will end up? I guess a dead ambassador doesn't convince anyone who counts.

[newmember]

56. It's sad to think but we don't matter

And it's quite true that we really don't know who we will be arming.
Sure we have some C.I.A on the ground in Syria feeding back info
but in the end this will be a crap shoot .

Some of these weapons will end up being used against Americans and our allies.

[Loudly]

37. Please feel free to escalate a U.S. involvement

I'll give you back my best recommendation in some mail I recognize go?

[Fuddnik]

41. What's My Line?

A TV show from the 50's.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. This felt like another "Third Way Manny" post.

[totodeinhere]

46. No good alternatives

In our case we have nothing but no win alternatives. We can back the rebels who are supported by Al-Qaeda or we can back Assad who is supported by Iran and Hezbollah. Or we can sit by and watch the slaughter of civilians continue. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide what to do about this one.

[Snake Plissken]

49. the problem is you don't want to introduce a new product until the fall

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/nyregion/quotation-of-the-day-766518.html

[marble falls]

58. In the face of a reported over 90,000 dead in this outrage, I think that Syria has not reached a

tipping point where a majority of the population wants to have regime change. It may be arrangeable by supplying weapons or outside troops. What? We need another Iraq? We need to bring down another non-theocratic government? How stable is Iraq right now? Once the majority of folks decided to bring down the USSR( an extremely centrally controlled system that withstood the Third Reich, internal genocides, NATO, the CIA, etc) four days and a handful of casualties to bring it down.

I think what is happening in Syria is horrendous. I also think outside influencers may well have made it worse. I find the possibility of US or NATO or UN troop fighting along side of al Qaeda or other mujahedin forces surreal in light of everything thats happened since Russia invaded Afghanistan.

There's a lot of lessons to be learned in a photo of Sen McCain with a shit eating grin on his face standing next to a couple of murdering kidnappers.

[Chaco Dundee]

59. I'm so suprised,I don't know what.

As long as every private person and every elected person hangs their flag in the wind,changes,long overdue will not happen.Satin,that is obvious.so to try to discus or state the facts is a lost game already.there are alarms,but nobody wakes up.for to many years resignation has been the answer. I'm so impressed with the average people;I have started to hate my mirror.

[donco]

60. Fuck the line

let someone else pull line duty for a change.

[ReRe]

63. Me thinks...

... you're channeling Saint George tonight... (Carlin, i.e.) Might be a nice rant for Lewis Black. I don't know why, but I'm craving comedy. Thanks for your OP. Seriously, a line?

[Cleita]

64. Sure giving them more weapons so others will give the other side more

weapons. Sure that'll bring peace. Also, since only 11% of Americans want intervention in Syria, why is the will of the people being ignored again? My bet is that it's to line the coffers of the military/industrial complex now that the other wars are winding down. Gotta keep greasing those money wheels for Wall Street.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. Syria's sweet oil and sweet pipeline

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1

[tiny elvis]

66. get those organs in your mouths and blow

[MichiganVote]

68. How do you know politicians aren't doing shit? They go to war and waste money. Simple.

They go on TV, pledge your kids or grandkids, send them off and call it a day's work. Its shit, shit and more shit.

[bobclark86]

69. AMURICA! FUCK YEAH!!!!1!!!ONE

Comin' again to save the MUTHERFUCKIN' DAAAYYYYAAAAHHH!!!!

[Initech]

70. Love that movie!

[bluedeathray]

78. Bullshit

How easy is it to use a chemical weapon in some third world nation? Even a fighter jet delivery can be easily arranged. America could easily be being manipulated here. Drawn into this conflict by design.

If we objected to what Assad is doing so strenuously, one fucking well placed bomb would settle it.

Beats the hell out of 5 million dollars a day to arm and train the rebels. Or the USA becoming more entangled in yet another Arab nation's internal problems. IMHO

[ucrdem]

79. Nah. Per BBC, the evidence is that Sarin was used, not that Assad used it.

In other words, the line is wherever we want to draw it. As usual.

[Laelth]

80. Is this really about the President and the United States saving face?

Really? If so, that's a pretty weak excuse to go to war.

Just my two cents.

-Laelth

[Harmony Blue]

85. Yeah all indications point to this

being the catalyst.

[KoKo]

87. Clinton inferred that Obama would be a "Wuss" if he didn't start to intervene...

McCain thought so, too. So...here we are. Don't call PBO a Wuss.

It's interesting that Clinton and McCain are now the backseat drivers of endless wars. Or, perhaps they have been all along and it was PBO who was in the backseat looking at the rearview mirror. It's a comfortable spot, enough.

Clinton will be interviewed on Bloomberg Business News at 1:00 pm today. Rahm Emmanuel, Wesley Clark and others are in town for the "Clinton Global Initiative Conference and they will also have time on Bloomberg BN with interviews. The coordination of reaching the "Red Line" in time for the Conference is just a coincidence...I guess.

Wes Clark will be discussing "Global Energy Security" at the Conference.

[Laelth]

88. It appears to me that Obama has been fighting back against the dogs of war for some time.

Precisely because Obama was resistant, I think, the MIC pulled out some big guns--a popular, Democratic ex-President and Gramps (sadly, the best the Republicans have)--in order to put pressure on Obama. Apparently, it worked. I do not blame Obama too much. I suspect the pressure was enormous. I certainly wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

-Laelth

[KoKo]

94. True enough...Obama doesn't have backing enough to resist the PTB's Policy...

And, that's alarming. Where is the Democratic Structure that should "Have his Back?"

If there isn't such a structure...what does that mean for our country going forward? Are the two Parties now the same? If one elects a Democrat and there's no strong structure to hold them up ...then they are nothing but tools. And that's quite a disturbing thought if that is what is being revealed.

[Laelth]

98. The Democratic Party has always had both hawks and doves.

Once upon a time, the Republicans had some doves too. Now, not so much. On foreign policy, Democratic administrations tend to be much more thoughtful and diplomatic. If we're going to have a war, I'd rather it be under a Democratic President. Perhaps Obama will handle this matter with the same grace and strength that Clinton displayed in his handling of Bosnia/Kosovo. The other alternative is Bush-like arrogance and stupidity, i.e. Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

But resisting calls for war? That's hard for any Democratic President. Obama is in some good company (FDR and LBJ).

-Laelth

[KoKo]

99. Indeed..but LBJ's handling of Vietnam didn't work out so well for him or us...and

FDR's caution on WWII (while giving funding under the table to our allies) was a different situation. I don't compare "insurgent Rebels" with the Nazi's efforts at extermination and world domination. A war against a term "Terrorist" is nothing like WWII.

I agree with you that it's Iran we have the war with...and we want to remake the ME. But, this is a stealth war. It's not anything we should be involved in. And, that's where we would differ.

[Laelth]

100. For further clarification.

I am not a hawk, and I am not advocating war. I do, however, understand the arguments of those who are, in fact, advocating war. It's clear that you do too.

This is a delicate, tricky matter. Black and white answers seem unsatisfactory, to me, at the moment. I do know that our allies have been talking about going to war in Syria for some time. It appears that Obama has been dragging his feet on the issue, trying to avoid war. Now that it appears the rebels might lose, the pressure to get involved has increased dramatically. Our allies seem to want this war. Obama, it appears, has decided to give it to them.



-Laelth

[sibelian]

91. I wonder if the line was established simply so that it could be crossed.

I wonder where those chemical weapons came from.

[Laelth]

92. Very good questions.

Not like I have any answers, but I admit to sharing your curiosity.

-Laelth

[Poll_Blind]

95. I want to know the chain of custody on those samples and how many are purported to...

...have been killed with those agents.

Because we're talking weapons of mass destruction here, so you'd expect large numbers of casualties, pictures of piles of bodies, etc., from a use of them.

PB

[Yo_Mama]

86. People just don't want more wars

and both sides are pretty vile, to be honest. It's not like there IS a good guy in here.

The best international intervention can produce is likely to be a pretty bad outcome.

[spanone]

89. fuck war

[G_j]

93. The US Used Chemical Weapons in Iraq - And Then Lied About It

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

if anyone has information to counter this, please share it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1115-29.htm

Published on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

The US Used Chemical Weapons in Iraq - And Then Lied About It

Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?

by George Monbiot

----
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

By BY PETER POPHAM
Tuesday 08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

[KoKo]

97. Yes, indeed and anyone whose been on this site since early 2000's knows

how much we were lied to....over and over and over.

That they would do it again for more war...means they think Americans have short memories. Which many do....but what about the rest of us who are astonished that this could be used again. The old Saddam thing: "But, he used poisoned gas on his own people, he will do it again...there are stockpiles of poisoned gas in Iraq...and babies were jerked out of their incubators by Saddam...Jessica Lynch was abducted and abused.." and on an on.

[JustAnotherGen]

101. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. It's even more important than a Double Dog Dare!!

[indepat]

105. Someone must teach the guys who wear the black hats that if the line is

crossed, somebady is going to have to pay.

[Poll_Blind]

106. Calling his bullshit almost 80 days in advance. Am I prophetic or is the president predictable?!

PB