Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

How does Syria get worse? Its already in the worst case scenario. I keep hearing us making it worse but its already in lebanon and iraq. Its already bled over, its already a proxy conflict. Doing nothing has in large part caused this. Not doing anything is a choice and it makes us responsible for the actions which come after.

And how does this look to Iran? The military option is supposed to bring about a diplomatic solution. If they don't believe we'll act how will it be effective in preventing that program?

You honestly think Iran doesn't realize that they're signing their own death certificate once they reach a certain level of enrichment/nuclear capability? This is pro-Israel nonsense, and unsurprising coming from you. Iran knows exactly what they're doing, and by now they realize the Obama administration is the only thing holding Israel back...but that won't last for long.

Saudi Arabia has been involved in a proxy war with Syria since before the civil war. There has been some bleeding over into Lebanon, but let's be clear: a US attack would make it far worse. Getting rid of Assad would make Syria explode into further violence/cleansing.

 

[East Lake]

Assad is exterminating his citizens. What could be worse is splitting hairs.

 

[Tamanon]

Honestly the Syria situation would be the perfect time for Iran to put on its big boys pants and really join the international community. They're in a unique position to actually help affect change and calm the fighting there, and it would only look better for them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What does the power vacuum look like if Assad gets deposed? Sectarian strife, secularists vs Islamists, attacks on Alawite minorities, the house of Saud with a strong influence.

I'm not arguing for anything bysides strikes to punish for chemical weapons. A political, negotiated peace is the only way out.

Honestly the Syria situation would be the perfect time for Iran to put on its big boys pants and really join the international community. They're in a unique position to actually help affect change and calm the fighting there, and it would only look better for them.

I've actually seen some people talking about them taking a hard line on chemical weapons given their history with them. I'm not sure how truthful that is though.

You honestly think Iran doesn't realize that they're signing their own death certificate once they reach a certain level of enrichment/nuclear capability? This is pro-Israel nonsense, and unsurprising coming from you. Iran knows exactly what they're doing, and by now they realize the Obama administration is the only thing holding Israel back...but that won't last for long.

Saudi Arabia has been involved in a proxy war with Syria since before the civil war. There has been some bleeding over into Lebanon, but let's be clear: a US attack would make it far worse. Getting rid of Assad would make Syria explode into further violence/cleansing.

No I don't. If this red line doesn't matter why does another? It allows them test us. And I don't think Israel is as gung-ho as they are portrayed as being. How many times have people claimed they were going to attack?

I'm sorry I really really don't trust your analysis of world affairs and I don't understand how this is pro-israel nonsense, and again NOBODY in the administration is talking about bombing assad himself. I support a negotiated peace. Assad needs to go but I don't think killing him and destroying his entire government is the best way out for the country. Most wars end in a negotiated peace. The thing is this conflict has two sides who can go at this for years, which makes this so horrible.

You are actually seemingly supporting Assad which is disgusting. You're supporting a dictator for the sake of stability, the same thing that's constantly backfired.

 

[B-Dubs]

Honestly the Syria situation would be the perfect time for Iran to put on its big boys pants and really join the international community. They're in a unique position to actually help affect change and calm the fighting there, and it would only look better for them.

You could say the same for Russia except that Putin is too busy trying to find a tiger to wrestle while putting gay dudes in jail.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Nothing. It's not our concern unless Assad attacks Turkey or Israel. The Syrian situation will resolve itself soon enough, if the reports about Assad winning are true. I'd rather have Assad in control of Syria than Al-Qaeda, or whatever fundamentalist "government" would take over.

Nothing, I don't understand why people insist on doing something for the sake of doing something, no matter that the consequences may be worse than doing nothing.

That's unacceptable cowardice, IMO. It makes the entire global collective stance against chemical weapons(or a global stance on anything) a joke and sets a precedent that anybody in a similar position could use these type of attack as an option and expect nothing else from the world other than either trembling or a cold shoulder.

Not wanting to go to war, for the sake of not going to war is never a wise option.

 

[Cloudy]

Pete King: "President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents."

It begins LOL

 

[Tamanon]

It begins LOL

Peter King can go fuck himself.

 

[B-Dubs]

It begins LOL

Peter King can go fuck himself.

Amen

How the fuck he keeps winning reelection is beyond me. Friggen Long Island.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That's unacceptable cowardice, IMO. It makes the entire global collective stance against chemical weapons(or a global stance on anything) a joke and sets a precedent that anybody in a similar position could use these type of attack as an option and expect nothing else from the world other than either trembling or a cold shoulder.

Not wanting to go to war, for the sake of not going to war is never a wise option.

Sorry, I'm not concerned about that whatsoever - we are not the world police. If Assad uses gas on an ally then we'll fire up the jets. But I'm not going to agree to wasting American lives or money in another country's civil war, whether to save face ("red line") or uphold some alleged world precedent that the United States has violated in the past.

 

[RustyNails]

Bush got through the process, so it can't be that impressive!

Bush was better than any GOP congressman at the moment.

That's unacceptable cowardice, IMO. It makes the entire global collective stance against chemical weapons(or a global stance on anything) a joke and sets a precedent that anybody in a similar position could use these type of attack as an option and expect nothing else from the world other than either trembling or a cold shoulder.

Not wanting to go to war, for the sake of not going to war is never a wise option.

It's useless arguing with isolationists. They don't like affecting any change whatsoever.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Sorry, I'm not concerned about that whatsoever -

Thats why I'm glad we elect people who are...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Amen

How the fuck he keeps winning reelection is beyond me. Friggen Long Island.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg

"9/11 was bad"

 

[RustyNails]

Sorry, I'm not concerned about that whatsoever - we are not the world police. If Assad uses gas on an ally then we'll fire up the jets. But I'm not going to agree to wasting American lives or money in another country's civil war, whether to save face ("red line") or uphold some alleged world precedent that the United States has violated in the past.

Sorry but USA is not Belgium or a country with no say in international matters. It's equivalent to not saving someone on railroad tracks because fuck them, they don't matter to us.

 

[remist]

It begins LOL

Although he doesn't concede any real power, it may put political pressure on future presidents to hold this type of referendum.

That's unacceptable cowardice, IMO. It makes the entire global collective stance against chemical weapons(or a global stance on anything) a joke and sets a precedent that anybody in a similar position could use these type of attack as an option and expect nothing else from the world other than either trembling or a cold shoulder.

Not wanting to go to war, for the sake of not going to war is never a wise option.

The global collective stance against chemical weapons is already a joke, our government condoned their use against Iran, Israel's use of white phosphorous ect. It's not cowardice to refuse to act unilaterally, the burden of policing the "global collective stance against chemical weapons" needs to be a collective one.

Sorry but USA is not Belgium or a country with no say in international matters. It's equivalent to not saving someone on railroad tracks because fuck them, they don't matter to us.

If only it was that binary. Just put enough effort forward and "save" the Syrian people. Unfortunately it's not that simple

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sorry but USA is not Belgium or a country with no say in international matters. It's equivalent to not saving someone on railroad tracks because fuck them, they don't matter to us.

It's more like saving someone on a railroad track by throwing a bus full of people on the railroad track.

A strike poses more of a threat than no strike. Assad will win soon enough, and that is a better outcome than toppling him and ushering in more sectarian violence and potentially giving AQ a safe haven.

As I and others have pointed out, the US has violated the chemical weapons "agreement" before. This is nothing new.

 

[Black Mamba]

If people no longer need to rely on hard jobs for low wages, the wages for those jobs will naturally rise to make them attractive again. If the government guarantees that basic living costs will be covered, then the added labor costs of those hard jobs that are needed to provide the goods and services for basic living needs will be included in the basic income. A new equilibrium of prices and wages will be reached.

This is just econ 101 magic, not real world application.

You're correct that if people have enough income, wages Demanded for "ugly" jobs will naturally rise to make them attractive again. What you haven't explained, however, is how employers will be able to accommodate this new desirable wage. You just assume it will happen without any reasoning because of the invisible hand.

Just take it to an extreme. Let's say everyone gets $100k for basic income. Will that accomplish what you argue? Of course not, and the moment you admit it you validate my argument. There is some point at which you screw up. I don't know that point, but it exists.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's not cowardice to refuse to act unilaterally, the burden of policing the "global collective stance against chemical weapons" needs to be a collective one.

Its the international equivalent of the bystander effect. It diffuses responsibility

 

[RustyNails]

It's more like saving someone on a railroad track by throwing a bus full of people on the railroad track.

I don't get it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sacrificing the bus of people to stop the train from killing the one person on the railroad tracks.

Its the international equivalent of the bystander effect. It diffuses responsibility

That's literally not true, and nothing more than warmongering. Doing nothing and waiting is a legitimate strategy in foreign policy. Especially in a situation like this.

Obama surrounded himself with interventionists (Samantha Powers and Susan Rice) this year, which may explain some of this.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't get it.

He won't let go of the fact that the US will only make it worse. Ignoring that its already the worst it can be.

That's literally not true, and nothing more than warmongering. Doing nothing and waiting is a legitimate strategy in foreign policy. Especially in a situation like this.

Obama surrounded himself with interventionists (Samantha Powers and Susan Rice) this year, which may explain some of this.

I agree its a choice. We've chosen it for 2 1/2 years. And this is what we've gotten for it.

Its not warmongering. Nobody wanted this, nobody wants this. I wanted the people back in 2011 to get their democratic government the choice to do nothing caused this war we could have put more pressure on the government than we did. We made a choice and its lead down this path. We now face another choice. Also quit insinuating people arguing something needs to be done are wanting some giant iraq 2.0 or major intervention.

 

[remist]

Its the international equivalent of the bystander effect. It diffuses responsibility

That diffusion of responsibility is a matter of international treaty. Attacking another sovereign state is a serious matter and responses to these violations should be a collective one.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That diffusion of responsibility is a matter of international treaty. Attacking another sovereign state is a serious matter and responses to these violations should be a collective one.

Which you know will never happen because of Russia and China. Its buck passing.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to wait for Russia and China to enforce norms against killing your own citizens. If they're not going to do anything other countries should.

 

[remist]

Which you know will never happen because of Russia and China. Its buck passing.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to wait for Russia and China to enforce norms against killing your own citizens. If they're not going to do anything other countries should.

I'm fine with erring on the side of passing the buck until we get into a situation like conclusive evidence of an imminent genocide, where there isn't any question that our intervention is going to save lives and reduce suffering. I don't think you can say that for sure about a US escalation in Syria.

 

[Diablos]

I think military action in Syria is a bad choice at this point. The rest of the world does not seem supportive. The US will be isolated in potentially setting off a catalyst that could have unwanted repercussions for years to come.

I don't condone chemical warfare, particularly against children, but it isn't like everything was sugar and rainbows prior to that.

The Middle East is just such a clusterfuck, ugh.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm fine with erring on the side of passing the buck until we get into situation like conclusive evidence of an imminent genocide, where there isn't any question that our intervention is going to save lives and reduce suffering. I don't think you can say that for sure about a US escalation in Syria.

That case could (and was) made with respect to Libya but doesn't apply here. I haven't read anything that successfully argues US intervention will have a positive impact. Especially given the limited slap on the wrist Obama seems to favor.

(For the record I didn't support the Libyan intervention either).

 

[bonercop]

I'm fine with erring on the side of passing the buck until we get into situation like conclusive evidence of an imminent genocide, where there isn't any question that our intervention is going to save lives and reduce suffering. I don't think you can say that for sure about a US escalation in Syria.

As mentioned in the other thread, I think Mali makes for a rare example of an intervention done right. A sovereign state was threatened by an external threat, and both its people and its government wanted foreign help to prevent the situation from escalating. There was a clear end-goal to that conflict and you could say with confidence that the intervention was going to accomplish it.

 

[GillianSeed79]

People are obviously concerned about any blowback by outwardly providing support either directly or indirectly to the rebels because of the jihadist elements in their ranks, but has anyone considered potential repercussions if we don't do anything?

Say, or example, a few years down the road Assad manages to hold onto power by ultimately crushing the rebellion. What's to stop the jihadists or defeated moderate rebels from striking against western targets or launching terrorist acts because of perceived inaction from the international community, essentially blaming the west for losing?

On the other hand, if the rebels do manage to topple Assad's government and the whole country devolves further into turmoil and sectarian conflict, how will we be able to even remotely exert influence to try to stop the bloodshed or broker some sort of transitional government if they blame us for doing nothing?

Honestly, it sounds like a lose-lose situation no matter what we do.

 

[RustyNails]

That's literally not true, and nothing more than warmongering.

And doing nothing is equivalent to supporting bloodthirsty tyrants.

We can play the labels game till the cows come. Going to war against people like Qaddafi and Assad is something I can definitely support. The world is a better place without them. Besides, we are not going to war against Syria. We will strike at the military bases used by the Regime just enough for the rebels to get the upper hand. The same military bases used by Russians to bring in arms, fighter jets and tanks to Assad. Clinton intervened in Somalia. He struck Iraq's facilities in 1998. He regrets not getting involved in Rwanda mostly due to isolationists who were cowering in fear after the failed mission in Somalia. I'm sure Obama does not want any repeat of that. He has a string of successful foreign policy accomplishments, including Libyan intervention. His intervention will be measured and calculated, not just willy nilly SHOCK N AWE nonsense of W where we drop a cluster munition on anything wearing a head dress.

On the other hand, if the rebels do manage to topple Assad's government and the whole country devolves further into turmoil and sectarian conflict, how will we be able to even remotely exert influence to try to stop the bloodshed or broker some sort of transitional government if they blame us for doing nothing?

There's already a Syrian NTC waiting for the transition, similar to the Libyan NTC. Not only that, the rebellion is being commanded by members of a uniformed standing army composed of career soldiers, officers and generals. Libya did not have that.

 

[remist]

People are obviously concerned about any blowback by outwardly providing support either directly or indirectly to the rebels because of the jihadist elements in their ranks, but has anyone considered potential repercussions if we don't do anything?

Say, or example, a few years down the road Assad manages to hold onto power by ultimately crushing the rebellion. What's to stop the jihadists or defeated moderate rebels from striking against western targets or launching terrorist acts because of perceived inaction from the international community, essentially blaming the west for losing?

On the other hand, if the rebels do manage to topple Assad's government and the whole country devolves further into turmoil and sectarian conflict, how will we be able to even remotely exert influence to try to stop the bloodshed or broker some sort of transitional government if they blame us for doing nothing?

Honestly, it sounds like a lose-lose situation no matter what we do.

The Islamic rebels who might attack the US don't want us to intervene at all. Look at what one of their supporters posted in the other thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79277961&postcount=438

America is the head of evil in the world; it is the worst enemy of the Muslims! America is now on the verge of committing massacres in Syria that will not be less than those committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you will see that they will assume the mission of mass murder against Muslims from Bashar, and with it will come an international mandate to kill, they will impose a secular constitution and agent rulers upon you

It is this America that loves to announce its refusal of intervention and fighting, and anyone who demands this is a traitor to his Deen and his Ummah. America came to save its interests and its agent Bashar who they still considered president, and will work to secure a safe exit for him, his family and his aides. It is this America that is an enemy to you so take it for what it is!

There's no appeasing these people.

 

[RustyNails]

The Islamic rebels who might attack the US don't want us to intervene at all. Look at what one of their supporters posted in the other thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79277961&postcount=438





There's no appeasing these people.

Wow what a rancid mix of conspiracy blather and confusion. It's like they don't even know how to respond to a US intervention because Obama hates muslins and therefore is coming in to Syria to provide a safe passage to Assad...wat.

 

[delirium]

Anyone think this is kind of genius letting Congress vote on Syria? It puts the GOP in a dangerous position (they can no longer wash their hands on the situation and blame him for anything).

 

[The Librarian]

It sounded like Obama suggested he might still strike regardless of congress' vote. If that happens I would support impeachment. This has to end at some point or another, or we'll just continue down the same slippery slope.

You know, between this and your "everybody over 21 who hasn't had sex is a loser unless you're a woman" comment, I'm seriously wondering if you've just decided to become a joke character 24/7.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Anyone think this is kind of genius letting Congress vote on Syria? It puts the GOP in a dangerous position (they can no longer wash their hands on the situation and blame him for anything).

It's an extremely smart and calculated political move, especially since Congress won't be back until September 9th.

I was a bit worried earlier because I saw the situation as a lose-lose one, but passing the buck to Congress changes it entirely. Almost a win-win, to be honest.

 

[Black Mamba]

I just realized if Congress approves Obama's Syria plan, Congress backs itself into a major corner.

They can't shut down the gov't during strikes and they can't not raise the debt ceiling. I mean, they can do it, but they'd be run out of town.

I mean, approve military strikes, then refuse to spend the money on it. They'd never get away with that.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I just realized if Congress approves Obama's Syria plan, Congress backs itself into a major corner.

They can't shut down the gov't during strikes and they can't not raise the debt ceiling. I mean, they can do it, but they'd be run out of town.

I mean, approve military strikes, then refuse to spend the money on it. They'd never get away with that.

Chessmaster.

 

[Diablos]

I just realized if Congress approves Obama's Syria plan, Congress backs itself into a major corner.

They can't shut down the gov't during strikes and they can't not raise the debt ceiling. I mean, they can do it, but they'd be run out of town.

I mean, approve military strikes, then refuse to spend the money on it. They'd never get away with that.

OR --

They reject Obama's plan to strike Syria. Obama does it anyway to try and show that he's a boss. GOP House uses that for helping to justify their rage against the President during the debt ceiling drama. Potentially helps them defund Obamacare.

 

[bonercop]

I just realized if Congress approves Obama's Syria plan, Congress backs itself into a major corner.

They can't shut down the gov't during strikes and they can't not raise the debt ceiling. I mean, they can do it, but they'd be run out of town.

I mean, approve military strikes, then refuse to spend the money on it. They'd never get away with that.

oh shit. i hadn't even thought of that. i thought passing it to congress was a pretty easy "get out of jail free"-card he could use to try and cover his ass from the red-line comment, but I forgot those budget negotiations. holy shit. He wins no matter what happens now.

if he actually anticipated that all this would happen, then Obama really is an 11-D chess player after all.

OR --

They reject Obama's plan to strike Syria. Obama does it anyway to try and show that he's a boss. GOP House uses that for helping to justify their rage against the President during the debt ceiling drama. Potentially helps them defund Obamacare.

that would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

 

[kingkitty]

Lol, Obama giving the vote to Congress over Syria kinda hurts the "False Flag" narrative that's been seeping in a few threads.

 

[gcubed]

Lol, Obama giving the vote to Congress over Syria kinda hurts the "False Flag" narrative that's been seeping in a few threads.

What doesn't?

 

[Diablos]

We already have our "reasonable moderates" Lindsey Graham and Grampy McCain saying they agree that military action is necessary but ONLY if it implies regime change. They are trying to make this Obama's Iraq. How many other GOPers will follow suit? What a couple of pricks, eh?

 

[kingkitty]

What doesn't?

Aliens.

 

[The Librarian]

Gotta say, asking for congressional approval is a smart move, and a decision I support immensely. I don't know how Congress is going to vote, but a debate with the national legislature will be beneficial to all parties involved.

 

[B-Dubs]

We already have our "reasonable moderates" Lindsey Graham and Grampy McCain saying they agree that military action is necessary but ONLY if it implies regime change. They are trying to make this Obama's Iraq. How many other GOPers will follow suit? What a couple of pricks, eh?

That'd be a way out for Obama. He could say this should only be about making sure everyone knows there are consequences for breaking international law and not about regime change, which give him an out. There is no loss for him here.

 

[Frank the Great]

We already have our "reasonable moderates" Lindsey Graham and Grampy McCain saying they agree that military action is necessary but ONLY if it implies regime change. They are trying to make this Obama's Iraq. How many other GOPers will follow suit? What a couple of pricks, eh?

Doesn't really matter, Congress can authorize the action but the President executes it and defines the mission. They can flap about regime change all they want.

 

[PhoenixDark]

We already have our "reasonable moderates" Lindsey Graham and Grampy McCain saying they agree that military action is necessary but ONLY if it implies regime change. They are trying to make this Obama's Iraq. How many other GOPers will follow suit? What a couple of pricks, eh?

It's less about them wanting this to be "Obama's Iraq" and more about them being radical imperialists. We should all be glad McCain is nowhere near the presidency.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's less about them wanting this to be "Obama's Iraq" and more about them being radical imperialists. We should all be glad McCain is nowhere near the presidency.

Radical imperialists? You sound like ev

 

[User 406]

This is just econ 101 magic, not real world application.

You're correct that if people have enough income, wages Demanded for "ugly" jobs will naturally rise to make them attractive again. What you haven't explained, however, is how employers will be able to accommodate this new desirable wage. You just assume it will happen without any reasoning because of the invisible hand.

Just take it to an extreme. Let's say everyone gets $100k for basic income. Will that accomplish what you argue? Of course not, and the moment you admit it you validate my argument. There is some point at which you screw up. I don't know that point, but it exists.

That's a pretty big straw man. Of course you wouldn't start off with $100K in basic income right now, and admitting to that doesn't invalidate the concept at all. You'd first set up a formula that works with current prices to determine what a sufficient living income would be, then start distributing it. Then you'd see people start to bail on the worst underpaid jobs, and employers would need to offer more attractive wages to get them to stay. Prices would increase to cover the additional wages, and then the basic income would adjust as per the formula. Eventually you'd reach the new price/wage equilibrium.

A pat "Econ 101" dismissal isn't an argument. If there are some real world mechanisms that would outright derail this process, by all means present them.

 

[Oblivion]

This is awesome. Fox News chaplain gets smacked down on the Bible by John Fugelsang:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/...chaps-jesus-never-asked-a-leper-for-a-co-pay/

Here's the full vid:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49263362#52888086

 

[ivysaur12]

"For the record, I love my sister, but she is dead wrong on the issue of marriage. Freedom means freedom for everyone. That means that all families — regardless of how they look or how they are made — all families are entitled to the same rights, privileges and protections as every other. It’s not something to be decided by a show of hands. Please like and share if you agree." - Mary Cheney on her Facebook page.

Oy.