• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jamesinclair

Banned
sc0la said:
Wonder if the house will attach an ammendment to defund Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Wow.

This is whats going to happen.

Obamas all like "lol its in the GOP court now. Whatever they do they lose. They either support a kenyan marxist, or they go against bombing EVIL ARABS"

GOP: "Lol. We will totally defend this great american nation of ours by supporting this resolution which destroys the two biggest threats of our time: Assad and Obamacare. WE PASSED IT OBAMA, ITS ON YOU BITCH, are you going to drop the bombs or cower from behind?"

Obama: "fuuuuuuuuu"
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Tamanon said:
More like Obama invited McCain for McCain to sell the war to him. McCain wants more than he's proposing, he wants an actual plan to depose Assad.
Click to expand...

Which isn't going to happen, at least not right away. Obama seems hell bent on slapping Assad's hand and saying "no no." The problem is that any US intervention, even the "small" type Obama is proposing, could easily send major ripple effects through Syria and Lebanon.

McCain will probably get his way if Assad escalates things, or if more chemical attacks occur. He should be playing the long game here instead of throwing a tantrum, but what do you expect from John McCain. Obama is about to make a big mistake.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
K-thug wrote this today, which is something that's bothered me for the longest time:

Here’s how it happened: In 1894 Pullman workers, facing wage cuts in the wake of a financial crisis, went on strike — and Grover Cleveland deployed 12,000 soldiers to break the union. He succeeded, but using armed force to protect the interests of property was so blatant that even the Gilded Age was shocked. So Congress, in a lame attempt at appeasement, unanimously passed legislation symbolically honoring the nation’s workers.

It’s all hard to imagine now. Not the bit about financial crisis and wage cuts — that’s going on all around us. Not the bit about the state serving the interests of the wealthy — look at who got bailed out, and who didn’t, after our latter-day version of the Panic of 1893. No, what’s unimaginable now is that Congress would unanimously offer even an empty gesture of support for workers’ dignity. For the fact is that many of today’s politicians can’t even bring themselves to fake respect for ordinary working Americans.
Click to expand...

Congressman in the Gilded Age, the fricken Gilded Age, where things were a billion times more free market-y than today, did something like that back then, yet today, with things being massively more progressive today, you would still have pretty much the entire Republican caucus vote no against such a resolution. It's just absolutely stunning to me.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Oblivion said:
K-thug wrote this today, which is something that's bothered me for the longest time:



Congressman in the Gilded Age, the fricken Gilded Age, where things were a billion times more free market-y than today, did something like that back then, yet today, with things being massively more progressive today, you would still have pretty much the entire Republican caucus vote no against such a resolution. It's just absolutely stunning to me.
Click to expand...

If you think that's insane read up on International Workers' Day. The rest of the world takes the day off for something that happened in the US. We don't even get the day off and it happened in our own damn country. Why? Because Communism.
 
D

Diablos

Member
My fantasy: 60-70% of all workers nationwide, proportionally spread across the states, stop showing up to work indefinitely until a living wage is established and workers' rights are revisited and updated to fix many of the problems we all witness today.

Part of me wants to be civil, and rational. Part of me looks at how corporations have basically been just dandy since 2010 yet the average employee still gets pooped on. You really start to wonder how much worse it has to get until people really start to lose their shit. And rightfully so.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
McCain and Graham will now vote for the limited Syrian strike. I think they realize even a small strike will lead to Assad doing something stupid, thus embroiling the US in a larger conflict. Obama is being incredibly naive on this. There is no such thing as a quick "no no" slap here.
 
T

T'Zariah

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
McCain and Graham will now vote for the limited Syrian strike. I think they realize even a small strike will lead to Assad doing something stupid, thus embroiling the US in a larger conflict. Obama is being incredibly naive on this. There is no such thing as a quick "no no" slap here.
Click to expand...

The only reason we're doing this is because if we do nothing after Chemical Weapons are used then the so called "ban" means jack fucking shit.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
McCain also mentioned that Obama agreed to more aide to the rebels.

This is why this makes no sense. If our small attack sparks a larger escalation, we won't have a problem toppling Assad. But what happens to the chemical weapons? Do we send in troops to secure them? Do we trust the rebels to secure them? There is no endgame here. Ultimately Al-Qaeda benefits. This is the type of stupid foreign policy I'd expect from Bush or even Clinton, not Obama/Hagel/Kerry. I knew Samantha Powers and Susan Rice would be advocating this nonsense, but I didn't expect Obama to fall for it. But he dug the hole with the red line comment, now he has to win back "credibility" at the cost of lives.
 
T

thefit

Member
PhoenixPause said:
McCain also mentioned that Obama agreed to more aide to the rebels.

This is why this makes no sense. If our small attack sparks a larger escalation, we won't have a problem toppling Assad. But what happens to the chemical weapons? Do we send in troops to secure them? Do we trust the rebels to secure them? There is no endgame here. Ultimately Al-Qaeda benefits. This is the type of stupid foreign policy I'd expect from Bush or even Clinton, not Obama/Hagel/Kerry. I knew Samantha Powers and Susan Rice would be advocating this nonsense, but I didn't expect Obama to fall for it. But he dug the hole with the red line comment, now he has to win back "credibility" at the cost of lives.
Click to expand...

That's why "no boots" is bs someone is going to have to go in, either officially or not, and secure the cashes this is Iraq all over again were the sects raided the armories and started their sectarian civil war and then turned the bombs on the troops except this time it will be IED's with chemical weapons.

Its a tough one, topple the regime and drop men in there to hopefully secure the weapons and piss everyone off and give the al Qaeda elements already in there targets.

Do nothing you make enemies of the rebels they manage to topple Assad and gain access to the weapons and shit gets real bad real quick.

Assad squashes the rebels we do nothing and the whole world looks at us as to why we allowed thousands to be eradicated all along everyone that's currently sharpening their domestic and geo-political knives get to carve a lil piece of Obama and the democrats by association and we get a Republican in 2016.

Its all fucked.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
thefit said:
That's why "no boots" is bs someone is going to have to go in, either officially or not, and secure the cashes this is Iraq all over again were the sects raided the armories and started their sectarian civil war and then turned the bombs on the troops except this time it will be IED's with chemical weapons.

Its a tough one, topple the regime and drop men in there to hopefully secure the weapons and piss everyone off and give the al Qaeda elements already in there targets.

Do nothing you make enemies of the rebels they manage to topple Assad and gain access to the weapons and shit gets real bad real quick.

Assad squashes the rebels we do nothing and the whole world looks at us as to why we allowed thousands to be eradicated all along everyone that's currently sharpening their domestic and geo-political knives get to carve a lil piece of Obama and the democrats by association and we get a Republican in 2016.

Its all fucked.
Click to expand...

Best option IMO, and I disagree about it costing politically in the US. It would certainly hurt Obama's credibility, make him look like a fool etc...but he would have avoided a stupid war, and foreign policy minds worth listening to (Juan Cole for instance) would make that argument more effectively, ultimately. Democrats will suffer more for starting a stupid war than avoiding one, politically, so I don't think 2016 would be an issue.

Assad is going to win, if we stay out. And ultimately that is the best outcome here, as it will prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs and avoid a long term sectarian conflict.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixPause said:
Assad is going to win, if we stay out. And ultimately that is the best outcome here, as it will prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs and avoid a long term sectarian conflict.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, this is the same line used by Qaddafi and now Assad. Oh noes the terrorists are going to take over.

Assad is not fighting terrorists. The NTC which is going to be the de facto transitional government does not recognize any foreign fronts. The very small group of foreign fighters cannot overrun the FSA. You're being hysterical as usual.
 
T

thefit

Member
If this happens they better have a goddamn good plan. You know that Pakistan scenario were al quaeda topples the government and they swipe the nukes? This is getting to that point.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
If I recall correctly, this is the same line used by Qaddafi and now Assad. Oh noes the terrorists are going to take over.

Assad is not fighting terrorists. The NTC which is going to be the de facto transitional government does not recognize any foreign fronts. The very small group of foreign fighters cannot overrun the FSA. You're being hysterical as usual.
Click to expand...
I'm not buying that. And don't pretend like I'm the only person who thinks this is a very bad idea that could spark something worse.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
Best option IMO, and I disagree about it costing politically in the US. It would certainly hurt Obama's credibility, make him look like a fool etc...but he would have avoided a stupid war, and foreign policy minds worth listening to (Juan Cole for instance) would make that argument more effectively, ultimately. Democrats will suffer more for starting a stupid war than avoiding one, politically, so I don't think 2016 would be an issue.

Assad is going to win, if we stay out. And ultimately that is the best outcome here, as it will prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs and avoid a long term sectarian conflict.
Click to expand...
This is pretty damn disgusting. Mass murder is ok if it increases stability and doesn't hurt dems politically? Isn't this what we've been criticized for for the last 50 years? Propping up dictators? This can justify so much.

This Al Qeada=rebels notion needs die. Some are, a lot are not. Assad isn't going to win. Doing nothing in this war promotes a long-term insurgency and a battlefield for Al Qeada to constantly train on. The best solution is to provoke a political solution that enables some kind of transition with Assad leaving but no full scale purging. This negotiated government would hopefully be able to exert strength and root out the terrorists who set up shop in the north of the government. The best way to do this is to strengthen the opposition and to give them an upperhand to force assad to negotiate.

You're characterization of the war are cartoonish and simplistic. You oppose the war, any war, out of principle. That's fine and there are good reasons for doing that. There is an element of the unknown in what our actions could bring. There is a question of if there will be reprisals or the response of the regime. That's a good basis for opposition. But you instead you cherry-pick articles which inaccurately portray the conflict as two evil sides, instead of how as it is actually going on and conflict when there are many small players and groups (If you want to simplify it the best your going to get is a Assad vs self-concerned terrorist in the north vs. FSA who were the original opposition ). You are relying on stereotypes and caricatures which border on racist.

You concerns about chemical weapons start out in good faith but then descend into spreading a bunch of incoherent concerns that contradict each other and previous claims you made. You say Assad is better off with the chemical weapons because he can better safeguard them but you've also claimed the rebels have access to them. How do these square and how can you say assad is better for having them when he's used them multiple times?
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixPause said:
I'm not buying that. And don't pretend like I'm the only person who thinks this is a very bad idea that could spark something worse.
Click to expand...

You don't have to, and that's why people who have been following the 2 year old conflict very closely know better than you do. If you think Syria is a sectarian mess you have really no clue how bad Libya was in comparison. During intervention everyone (including Qaddafi) said that if he's gone, Libya will go into tribal chaos and civil strife. Nothing of the sort happened other than the government struggling for a bit to clamp down the arms. The doomsayers are at it again with Syria. The only thing worse that could happen is Assad using chemical warfare again with impunity while America's left nut is squeezed by doom merchants and it's right nut squeezed by vile political opportunists.
thefit said:
If this happens they better have a goddamn good plan. You know that Pakistan scenario were al quaeda topples the government and they swipe the nukes? This is getting to that point.
Click to expand...
ISI is two-faced and plays favorites, but even they know that scenario is way too fucking apocalyptic. It's never going to happen.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
So Nikki Haley is a cunt.

She posted this on Facebook.

Two South Carolina women who were legally married in Washington, D.C., have filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Nikki Haley and Atty General Alan Wilson challenging South Carolina’s Defense of Marriage Law and a 2006 amendment to the state Constitution that expressly banned same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...

I dare not read through too many comments or else I'll have to rage quit the world, but this one made me LOL

A conservative. A Libertarian. A Tea Party member and GAY. A conservative like me does not won't to change the definition of marriage like the liberals - I just want the Govt to stay the hell out of marriage altogether. Leave to the churches.
Click to expand...

Log Cabin Republicans truly are an interesting case of Stockholm Syndrome.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
APKmetsfan said:
This is pretty damn disgusting. Mass murder is ok if it increases stability and doesn't hurt dems politically? Isn't this what we've been criticized for for the last 50 years? Propping up dictators? This can justify so much.
Click to expand...

Your post would have been more respectable without this first paragraph. Yes, the US gets criticized for propping up dictators. No, the US does not get criticized for propping up the Syrian government, which it has never supported because it is independent and which it has always sought to depose. If this is your argument, make your case for bombing Saudi Arabia. If you don't want to make that case, don't bring up US support for dictatorships as a reason for toppling the Syrian government.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
empty vessel said:
Your post would have been more respectable without this first paragraph. Yes, the US gets criticized for propping up dictators. No, the US does not get criticized for propping up the Syrian government, which it has never supported because it is independent and which it has always sought to depose. If this is your argument, make your case for bombing Saudi Arabia. If you don't want to make that case, don't bring up US support for dictatorships as a reason for toppling the Syrian government.
Click to expand...

Its gets criticized whenever it criticizes any government because it doesn't criticize all. Whenever opposing an evil regime is brought up I constantly hear the US can't talk because its friends with Saudi Arabia or China. You're lying to yourself if you think we're only criticized for propping up dictators who we actively installed, when its convenient its used. Yes even with syria where bush's and obama's attempt to thaw relationships is seen as making us friendly and supportive of assad. See hyms posts. See the posts during the libya conflict where photos of diplomatic meetings were used as reasons why we can't criticize anyone. And never was using that as support for Syria just to point out that its a cynical reason and something we're criticized for on many occasions it can be turned around against us, rightly or wrongly.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Wilsongt said:
Log Cabin Republicans truly are an interesting case of Stockholm Syndrome.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand gay Republicans. I understand disagreeing with a party on an issue or two, but like... one of the Republican Party's central planks is to actively suppress you and your sexuality, disregarding your very humanity and even if you put your life on the line for a conservative cause, you're still considered the scum of the earth and should die.

It's such a huge blind spot and I really can not comprehend it.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Aaron Strife said:
I really don't understand gay Republicans. I understand disagreeing with a party on an issue or two, but like... one of the Republican Party's central planks is to actively suppress you and your sexuality, disregarding your very humanity and even if you put your life on the line for a conservative cause, you're still considered the scum of the earth and should die.

It's such a huge blind spot and I really can not comprehend it.
Click to expand...

I suppose they'll say something like they are fiscally conservative... But, by voting Republican, they are voting directly against their best interest. It's... quite confusing.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
APKmetsfan: I have never stated I am against all wars, so let's get that out the way; I am against dumb wars that have nothing to do with protecting the country or our allies. And given your pro-Israel posting history, I don't think it's surprising that you support this nonsense. Your point about propping up dictators in relation to Assad makes no fucking sense, as EV noted.


RustyNails said:
You don't have to, and that's why people who have been following the 2 year old conflict very closely know better than you do. If you think Syria is a sectarian mess you have really no clue how bad Libya was in comparison. During intervention everyone (including Qaddafi) said that if he's gone, Libya will go into tribal chaos and civil strife. Nothing of the sort happened other than the government struggling for a bit to clamp down the arms. The doomsayers are at it again with Syria. The only thing worse that could happen is Assad using chemical warfare again with impunity while America's left nut is squeezed by doom merchants and it's right nut squeezed by vile political opportunists.

ISI is two-faced and plays favorites, but even they know that scenario is way too fucking apocalyptic. It's never going to happen.
Click to expand...

First, Syria is not Libya. Second I'm quite tired of being singled out as if I'm the only person who questions this shit, and therefore must be trolling or uninformed. There is little international support for this, and the ME is divided on it as well (with SA on our side, as a strike would further tip the scale in their favor during their proxy war with Iran). There is no endgame here, if things escalate. This seems like nothing more than a punitive attack to save Obama's ass, which could very well spark a larger conflict.
 
I

ISOM

Member
PhoenixPause said:
Best option IMO, and I disagree about it costing politically in the US. It would certainly hurt Obama's credibility, make him look like a fool etc...but he would have avoided a stupid war, and foreign policy minds worth listening to (Juan Cole for instance) would make that argument more effectively, ultimately. Democrats will suffer more for starting a stupid war than avoiding one, politically, so I don't think 2016 would be an issue.

Assad is going to win, if we stay out. And ultimately that is the best outcome here, as it will prevent terrorists from acquiring WMDs and avoid a long term sectarian conflict.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't hurt just obama's credibility though, it would be catastrophic credibility hit to the US. How can any partner trust that the US would indeed protect them if congress votes no. The US would have no opinion on any future dictators mass killing their own citizens either. It would set an amazing precedent if congress votes no.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
IGSaint said:
It wouldn't hurt just obama's credibility though, it would be catastrophic credibility hit to the US. How can any partner trust that the US would indeed protect them if congress votes no. The US would have no opinion on any future dictators mass killing their own citizens either. It would set an amazing precedent if congress votes no.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear where that leap of logic comes from. It's not like Syrian rebels are our partners or allies.

EDIT

PhoenixPause said:
Sounds like they're all going to vote against it while still demanding Obama do something. And this morning Kerry reiterated that Obama may still choose to attack regardless of what Congress says.

I still can't believe we're having this conversation about a country that poses no threat to the United States.
Click to expand...

Originally I was hoping that there'd be enough people either completely against war or only for a bill that gives obama very limited power in what he can do with syria, and that the fully pro war people would end up voting for the bill with limitations because the less war people hold all the cards as they'd be the most ok with congress doing nothing.

Now it seems like Kerry is giving the war mongers an out to actually be ok with getting nothing done because that could actually lead to a larger war anyway and actually have the political win to force Obama to still be the one to take the blame for the war and also look terrible for asking for a congressional vote that never meant anything to him.

So now we may have both lost our chance to put limitations on the intervention, and made the Obama administration look terrible in the process, all thanks to Kerry saying some dumb thing that didn't need to be said out loud even if true.
 
D

delirium

Member
thepotatoman said:
I'd like to hear where that leap of logic comes from. It's not like Syrian rebels are our partners or allies.
Click to expand...
It's not that hard to understand. A US president says any usage of chemical weapons crosses a red line and you do nothing to back up your words, why would ANY country trust you in the future when you say "yeah, we'll do X for you if Y happens".
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
So if the president says something we always have to follow through on it 100% no matter how negatively the public feels about it? It wasn't even some big promise to an actual ally of ours, just something said to the press more for the american people who are wondering what's going to happen with Syria than anyone else. I mean all of our other allies have decided not to do anything about it.

If David Cameron had said the exact same things as Obama, would we have lost all trust in the UK because their vote for Syrian intervention failed because the people and thus parliament did not want anything to do with it? I'd still feel like the UK would have the US's back when we really actually need it.
 
B

bonercop

Member
PhoenixPause said:
First, Syria is not Libya. Second I'm quite tired of being singled out as if I'm the only person who questions this shit, and therefore must be trolling or uninformed. There is little international support for this, and the ME is divided on it as well (with SA on our side, as a strike would further tip the scale in their favor during their proxy war with Iran). There is no endgame here, if things escalate. This seems like nothing more than a punitive attack to save Obama's ass, which could very well spark a larger conflict.
Click to expand...

Here's what I don't get: he's already managed to cover his ass. He passed the responsibility onto congress. He can blame them for anything that happens if they choose not to strike.

I can only conclude that he wants this, if he goes ahead with it after congress strikes it down.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixPause said:
First, Syria is not Libya. Second I'm quite tired of being singled out as if I'm the only person who questions this shit, and therefore must be trolling or uninformed. There is little international support for this, and the ME is divided on it as well (with SA on our side, as a strike would further tip the scale in their favor during their proxy war with Iran). There is no endgame here, if things escalate. This seems like nothing more than a punitive attack to save Obama's ass, which could very well spark a larger conflict.
Click to expand...
If you dont want to be singled out then you should add qualifiers to your otherwise blanket statements which are cheap and hyperbolic. Trepidation or caution are perfectly valid responses, but to simply say that you support a mass murderous tyrant over terrorists without looking at much more probable alternatives is wildly disingenuous. This guy gassed little children to death yet you think he is a better option. I wonder how you sleep at night. I dont think even a terrorist would be willing to do that. And there is no support for Syrian intervention in ME? Last I heard Arab League fully supports it and OIC went as far as calling for No Fly Zone over Syria.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
PoliGAF, this is how you politics in contemporary times. Simultaneous access to Twitter and Politics. I.e., I recently discovered Tweetdeck.

BTP13X4CIAAKkHW.png:large
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
So there are actual military personnel who are holding up the signs about not fighting "with Al queda" in Syria after the cyber attack on the military's website, apparently.

failfish
 
C

Crisco

Banned
Maybe I missed something, but I've haven't seen a single thing from Obama indicating that he actually wants to do this. It's been 5+ years at this point, I feel pretty comfortable judging his body language and word choice at this point. The dude backed himself into a corner with that red line speech and will do the absolute minimum to fulfill his "promise". He's letting Kerry be the pitbull on this one so no one can say he was advocating any sort of large scale intervention. That's my take at least, and I'll stick with it until the marine landing craft start hitting the Syrian shore.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
Also, it's become pretty clear that the GOP is going to try and tie military budget increases to any sort of strike authorization. I've read and heard enough quotes from them criticizing Obama for cutting the military too much, and that we won't be able to handle a potential escalation without raising the budget. So basically politics as usual, and I think Obama knows this. He may very well point to those GOP demands as the reason for not doing anything.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
If you dont want to be singled out then you should add qualifiers to your otherwise blanket statements which are cheap and hyperbolic. Trepidation or caution are perfectly valid responses, but to simply say that you support a mass murderous tyrant over terrorists without looking at much more probable alternatives is wildly disingenuous. This guy gassed little children to death yet you think he is a better option. I wonder how you sleep at night. I dont think even a terrorist would be willing to do that. And there is no support for Syrian intervention in ME? Last I heard Arab League fully supports it and OIC went as far as calling for No Fly Zone over Syria.
Click to expand...
I sleep fine. Assad is a murderous madman, no one is denying that except the recently banned Hym. The question is whether I believe the US is obligated to do anything about it, and for me the answer is no. There are too man risks.

I never said the ME is universally opposed; you accuse me of blanket statements while constantly making blanket strawmans out of my statements. There is division specifically due to the lack of any endgame. I ask again, what is the end result of us attacking? Is it just to slap Assad once, is it regime change, what is it? Lindsy Graham said he feels better about Obama's long term plan now, which is troubling to me given what Graham wants (regime change).
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Crisco said:
Also, it's become pretty clear that the GOP is going to try and tie military budget increases to any sort of strike authorization. I've read and heard enough quotes from them criticizing Obama for cutting the military too much, and that we won't be able to handle a potential escalation without raising the budget. So basically politics as usual, and I think Obama knows this. He may very well point to those GOP demands as the reason for not doing anything.
Click to expand...

Or hell, maybe even the GOP will use it as a bargaining chip.

You want a strike on Syria? Fine, we'll authorize it. But, to pay for it, we'll not put into money in the ACA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LG OLED owners: C4 77" vs 65". Pros and cons?
37
3K
Trilobit replied
Is it worth buying an A.I.?
6
434
Mihos replied
As a PC player are controllers over 100$ worth?
2 3
100
4K
kevboard replied
  • Locked
X (twitter) is now worth 9.4 billion
Business 5 6 7 8 9
426
24K
EviLore replied
Is Playstation Plus on PS5 worth it?
2
55
2K
SkylineRKR replied
Top Bottom