Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He's a Constitutional Law professor who doesn't seem to understand what the 4th Amendment says (or the 2nd, for that matter).

Now you're giving him WAY TOO LITTLE credit.

Because the strongest possibility is that he DOES understand, but doesn't CARE.

Say it isn't so!

You are right of course, but I still think the Obama Administration is 20% Obama trying to crystallize somekimd of old-school Lincolnesque legacy and 80% experts telling him what to do in the meantime.

I have seen nothing to indicate that he gives a flying fuck about his legacy.

And I also haven't seen any indication that he and Biden are listening to anyone at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But I guess that's easier to stomach than "I voted for The Smiler, when I thought I was voting for a reformer".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Boehner just jumped on board.

It's a done deal.

[LMNO]

I take back what I said about the GOP being the only ones seemingly putting brakes on the invasion.


I forgot to take into account that they wouldn't like the plan because it doesn't go far enough.


Fuck this shit.

[Junkenstein]

But I guess that's easier to stomach than "I voted for The Smiler, when I thought I was voting for a reformer".

The Smiler is pretty much bang on. At least an early prototype.

It's an old song, but military-industrial complex means cracking heads on a regular basis. As the need for profit grows, the speed of the cycle increases.

[Cain]

-

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20354377-obama-will-address-country-on-syria-calls-crisis-threat-to-global-peace?lite

Failing to respond "would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence,"

STOP ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS JOKE BEFORE!   

[Cain]

-

[Cainad (dec.)]

From what I gather, the strategy (i.e. the one they're allowed to talk about on teevee) is to toss a bunch of missiles at places controlled by the Assad regime, which will "send a message."

Not kill vital targets or destroy critical infrastructure, but send a message.

Will the missiles have sticky notes attached that read "heard about the chem weapons, plz stop"?

[Cramulus]

yeah, is there a strategy yet? or are we still running the clinton playbook? ie - lob a few missiles from off shore, put on sunglasses, cross arms

[Cain]

-

[Cainad (dec.)]

Well, there is what they say, and what they do.

To carry out precision missile strikes, you need boots on the ground.  Rebels wont cut it, you need special forces "painting" the target in question.

There will also likely be resistance, so knocking out Assad's airforce before the strikes is necessary.  No planes = no US boats bombed.

And then, the "strategic" targets will, mysteriously, turn out to soften Assad's defences in such a way it allows the rebels to capture them or advance and so continue to threaten Assad's regime.

Okay, so it's safe to figure that they are actually going to hit targets in a manner that actually favors the rebels. The rhetoric is mainly to try and get people on board with yet moar American interventionism, which isn't surprising.

Is there any particular reason to believe that the rebels will actually be friendly to American interests if they win?

[Cain]

-

[Cainad (dec.)]

Yeah, that's what I figured. There certainly didn't seem to be any obvious indicators that they are on "our side," and I'm inclined to think that the US is much too stupid to actually put in the effort to secure actual allegiances. Unless, of course, a stable Syria is not actually their end goal.

[Cain]

-