obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[Dannar26]

Attacking the US is suicide. WTF is wrong with you people?

It's wrong to wonder what our enemies might do when we're both backing opposite sides of a conflict? There are more possibilities here than world war 3.

 

[MiniDoom]

Attacking the US is suicide. WTF is wrong with you people?

and what do we have to gain by attacking Syria? chemical weapons won't be secured, Assad will still be in power. seems that our best option is to do nothing beyond providing humanitarian support.
WTF is wrong with you people who are set on bombing other people and their property?

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know what will happen...I guess we'll just have to hope for the best (whatever that is).

While we can always hope for the best, we can also posit what the most likely outcome is. On the scale of outcomes, Russia engaging with the US militarily is basically at the bottom.

 

[dank69]

and what do we have to gain by attacking Syria? chemical weapons won't be secured, Assad will still be in power. seems that our best option is to do nothing beyond providing humanitarian support.
WTF is wrong with you people who are set on bombing other people and their property?

Please quote where I said I want the US to bomb Syria.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

While we can always hope for the best, we can also posit what the most likely outcome is. On the scale of outcomes, Russia engaging with the US militarily is basically at the bottom.

And what do you think are the most likely outcomes?

 

[dank69]

It's wrong to wonder what our enemies might do when we're both backing opposite sides of a conflict? There are more possibilities here than world war 3.

It's wrong to worry that Russia would ever attack the US.

 

[MiniDoom]

Please quote where I said I want the US to bomb Syria.

my apologies for quoting you on that. my response was directed to people who are pushing for war. Your Russia statement just reminded me of all negative repercussions which are possible and not many if any at all positive outcomes that can come of more military adventurism.

 

[fskimospy]

And what do you think are the most likely outcomes?

Russia will attempt to make things hard for the US and whoever else helps us in non-military ways. Maybe some oil and gas saber rattling, obstruction on other issues, further aid to Assad's regime, etc. Maybe (and I mean MAYBE) they would share sigint with Syria using their ships in the region.

Despite recent efforts to fix this, Russia's military is old and poorly trained. Their navy is doubly so. They would not risk any actual military engagement with the US as they would have far more to lose than we would, and they would lose it.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Russia will attempt to make things hard for the US and whoever else helps us in non-military ways. Maybe some oil and gas saber rattling, obstruction on other issues, further aid to Assad's regime, etc. Maybe (and I mean MAYBE) they would share sigint with Syria using their ships in the region.

Despite recent efforts to fix this, Russia's military is old and poorly trained. Their navy is doubly so. They would not risk any actual military engagement with the US as they would have far more to lose than we would, and they would lose it.

Well they wouldn't wage war with us... Just 'degrade and deter'.. I mean that's how wars are fought nowadays right? What a bunch of manipulative passive aggressive bullshit.


I mean no joke that russia is not going to wage an all out war with the US. That really isn't what anyone thinks will happen.

But, as another poster mentioned, it is VERY possible for us to 'accidentally' make the first strike against a russian owned force.

And if that happens, knowing russia, they will basically feel obligated to reply with force or appear weak which is completely understandable.


Personally I don't think it would go THAT far, but my personal issue is that our Dear Leader is a complete embarrassment, and is making us out to be a mockery in front of the rest of the world.

 

[BoberFett]

Obama is pretty focused on stuff like this.
I assume he will do the strikes, and that's will be that.
If some want a long costly engaged war with troops and American casualties, you'll have to rely on the next president for that.
The next chapter will be republicans crying that not enough was done after this Obamawar terminates.
The error here is with people like McCain thinking pentality is not enough.
He and others believe this is the opportunity for pressing full democracy in the region.
Which always leads to never ending war involving troops and high casualties.

Wow, delusional assholes like you are trying to blame this on Republicans even as Obama, Kerry and Clinton are pushing for war.

 

[BoberFett]

Felt this was appropriate given our bastardization of phrases and words.

Forget terrorists. Truth is Americas greatest fear.

 

[dank69]

Forget terrorists. Truth is Americas greatest fear.

I think "act of war" and "a war" are the same thing.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I think "act of war" and "a war" are the same thing.

I disagree.


You can have an 'act of war' that is ignored or de-escalated and never turns into "a war". I think it's semantics though.

 

[dank69]

I disagree.


You can have an 'act of war' that is ignored or de-escalated and never turns into "a war". I think it's semantics though.

So then you think Genx87's post was stupid? Good. I'm glad you see my point.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

So then you think Genx87's post was stupid? Good. I'm glad you see my point.

Not really, considering he did it in sarcasm. I personally am capable of wrapping my mind around the concept of hypocrisy.

 

[dank69]

Not really, considering he did it in sarcasm. I personally am capable of wrapping my mind around the concept of hypocrisy.

I see. So you think Genx87 was posting that image in support of Kerry?

I don't think your sarcasm meter is working since you think he posted it sarcastically when he didn't, and you think I didn't post the statement about war and act of war being the same sarcastically when I did.

 

[fskimospy]

Felt this was appropriate given our bastardization of phrases and words.

Quick note on that, the attack on Pearl Harbor was 1.) also coordinated with 'boots on the ground' invasions of both US and UK territory (Hong Kong and the Philippines) and 2.) coupled with a declaration of war by Japan immediately thereafter.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Holy derail batman! You two have a raging hard-on for these Matt and Michael fellows. You guys puff yourselves up as if possession of leftist ideologies requires deep intellectual abilities not yet evolved by those "chimps" on the right. It really comes off as pompus. You're not even trying to have an honest debate.

You hammah sooo beeeg! Conservative hammah so small...

*sigh* Can't even recognize an aside.
Try to keep up.

it's not the place for you to repeatedly deride others in the same thread in an attempt to make you feel better about yourself.

Norms.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, considering how much Obama likes to use well armed UAV's so much, my hope is that this will be the first war the USA will fight and win by remote control.

Kidding aside, my main concern is that my friends and relatives in the military won't have to fight and die in another war based on a shameless outpouring of lies and deception like the ones we're still engaged in one degree or another.

Why can't we just have nice profitable cold wars like the last one instead of hot ones that get people shot, fragged, gassed, bombed and mutilated beyond repair? *sarcasm*

 

[Genx87]

Quick note on that, the attack on Pearl Harbor was 1.) also coordinated with 'boots on the ground' invasions of both US and UK territory (Hong Kong and the Philippines) and 2.) coupled with a declaration of war by Japan immediately thereafter.

Yeah, well back then when nations comitted acts of war they declared it as such. They didnt try to say bombing a naval base and killing 2500 people wasnt an act of war.

Either way it has a point. Our country through our policing actions of the last 5 decades have warped words when dicussing war.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, well back then when nations comitted acts of war they declared it as such. They didnt try to say bombing a naval base and killing 2500 people wasnt an act of war.

Either way it has a point. Our country through our policing actions of the last 5 decades have warped words when dicussing war.

Did Kerry claim the attacks on Syria wouldn't be an "act of war."

 

[Genx87]

Did Kerry claim the attacks on Syria wouldn't be an "act of war."

Not in the classic sense.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/john-kerry-we-are-not-going-to-war-in-the-classic-sense

Or if you have a little more time

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/04/john-kerrys-morally-linguistically-and-h

 

[BoberFett]

Did Kerry claim the attacks on Syria wouldn't be an "act of war."

When people are asked, do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100 percent of Americans would say no. We say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. That’s not what we’re here to ask. The president is not asking you to go to war, he’s not asking you to declare war, he’s not asking you to send one American troop to war. He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that. That’s not -- you know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here. - John Kerry

I'd say Kerry is trying to claim this isn't war. You can try to twist words, that's certainly what Bush/Cheney/Rove would do. But people who are honest can clearly see this is war even if lying politicians say otherwise.

 

[dank69]

Not in the classic sense.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/john-kerry-we-are-not-going-to-war-in-the-classic-sense

Or if you have a little more time

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/04/john-kerrys-morally-linguistically-and-h

I see you are doubling down on the claim that "a war" is the same thing as an "act of war." Kerry believes that this act of war will not turn into a full scale war. Not sure why you continue to think you've caught him in some sort of gotcha moment, but I think it probably has to do with the websites you get your information from.

 

[dank69]

I'd say Kerry is trying to claim this isn't war. You can try to twist words, that's certainly what Bush/Cheney/Rove would do. But people who are honest can clearly see this is war even if lying politicians say otherwise.

It would be an act of war. I would also consider the use of chemical weapons an act of war. I wouldn't classify either as "going to war."