View Poll Results: Will Assad Disarm?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, he'll disarm like a classy lady after a good bon mot

    4 14.29%
  • Yes, he'll disarm, but the sneaky b******, he'll keep some on the down low

    14 50.00%
  • No, he's faking it

    7 25.00%
  • No, we'll bomb him first

    3 10.71%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Will Assad Disarm?

  1. #21
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    At least not until we have a Republican president who wants to do it.
    *yawn*
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #22
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    *yawn*
    They say having "the yawn" on your side in an argument can overcome all the logic and facts in the world, but right-wing hypocrisy in the United States is so widespread and so blatant that I don't think it commands quite the respect it used to.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  3. #23
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    They say having "the yawn" on your side in an argument can overcome all the logic and facts in the world, but right-wing hypocrisy in the United States is so widespread and so blatant that I don't think it commands quite the respect it used to.
    And yet, you continue with the blind partisanship, because that's apparently more important than things like sovereignty and human life.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by TiredOfLife View Post
    And then Jesus comes back right?
    He pretty much said he would do it by saying be ready for "anything".
    Anything includes launching on Israel.

  5. #25
    Imposition of miscellany
    NoC_T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,193

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Yep. We're all gonna die. Russia and America are gonna bring human history to an abrupt end.

    Ya know. Over Syria.

  6. #26
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    And yet, you continue with the blind partisanship, because that's apparently more important than things like sovereignty and human life.
    I don't think it was right for the United States to get up to its eyeballs in the Middle East, but that was before my time and isn't something I exert a great deal of control over.

    To the extent we ARE involved in the Middle East and we do DEPEND on stability in that region: any action that sets the precedent that using chemical weapons is acceptable runs contrary to long established goals of stability in that region for the sake of expanding the regions' economic relations with the rest of the world. That's because cultural and tribal rivalries stretching across countries (the kind that fed into the Iran-Iraq War) provide a pretext to use chemical weapons to radically alter the balance of power in the region. For example, Saudi Arabia tried to bribe Russia to stay out of it because a weakened Syria makes them more powerful, Iran is jockeying with the United States for influence in Iraq because that makes them more powerful, etc.

    Each country in the Middle East wants a hegemony over the rest the same as Germany desired in Europe at the onset of WWII. It's why Saddam attacked Kuwait. He thought the West would accept his invasion, but the West decided that such invasions pose far too much of a threat to the power and economic structues of the Middle East, because then Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, would start gobbling up territories to expand their own influence.

    Obama essentially has continued an ancient, fifty-year old policy of promoting stability in the Middle East that demonstrating any use of a nation of power balance-altering chemical weapons, no matter how many backers or supporters that nation might have among the Western powers, cannot be permitted because it runs the chance that EVERY country in the Middle East will begin using chemical weapons to alter the balance of power. If such escalation occurs, the relations of various political factions in the West will be put in an extremely awkward and dangerous position. That's where the "WWIII" talk is coming from.

    Ordinarily, Russia would agree. If it was anyone else's boy on the line. It just so happens that Syria is in their in camp, so they want everybody in the West to make an exception to the rule of "no chemical weapons" that all nations collectively agreed violated the common interests of all.

    Ordinarily, Republicans would agree as well. But the right-wing media makes it living out of undermining Obama as a leader, and the Republicans find undermining Obama as a leader comes in handy.

    Particularly when continuing wars in the Middle East are extremely unpopular with the American people, as the Republicans are in the awkward position of being unpopular.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 09-10-13 at 04:28 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #27
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    ...Obama essentially has continued an ancient, fifty-year old policy of promoting stability in the Middle East...
    A policy that has done nothing but promote a never ending cycle of violence in exchange for short term gains. "...How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  8. #28
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    A policy that has done nothing but promote a never ending cycle of violence in exchange for short term gains. "...How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
    The policy is "expensive", but it is something the United States as a country (not just as a government, but every aspect of our society) has invested itself in. For that reason, it is Obama's job to oversee and preserve political equilibrium in the Middle East, as it was the job of all his predecessors both Democrat and Republican down to Eisenhower.

    For mostly vile reasons of self-interest, the right-wing has decided it is their job to disrupt, obtrude, and get in the way of that job.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #29
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I don't think it was right for the United States to get up to its eyeballs in the Middle East, but that was before my time and isn't something I exert a great deal of control over.

    To the extent we ARE involved in the Middle East and we do DEPEND on stability in that region: any action that sets the precedent that using chemical weapons is acceptable runs contrary to long established goals of stability in that region for the sake of expanding the regions' economic relations with the rest of the world. That's because cultural and tribal rivalries stretching across countries (the kind that fed into the Iran-Iraq War) provide a pretext to use chemical weapons to radically alter the balance of power in the region. For example, Saudi Arabia tried to bribe Russia to stay out of it because a weakened Syria makes them more powerful, Iran is jockeying with the United States for influence in Iraq because that makes them more powerful, etc.

    Each country in the Middle East wants a hegemony over the rest the same as Germany desired in Europe at the onset of WWII. It's why Saddam attacked Kuwait. He thought the West would accept his invasion, but the West decided that such invasions pose far too much of a threat to the power and economic structues of the Middle East, because then Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, would start gobbling up territories to expand their own influence.

    Obama essentially has continued an ancient, fifty-year old policy of promoting stability in the Middle East that demonstrating any use of a nation of power balance-altering chemical weapons, no matter how many backers or supporters that nation might have among the Western powers, cannot be permitted because it runs the chance that EVERY country in the Middle East will begin using chemical weapons to alter the balance of power. If such escalation occurs, the relations of various political factions in the West will be put in an extremely awkward and dangerous position. That's where the "WWIII" talk is coming from.

    Ordinarily, Russia would agree. If it was anyone else's boy on the line. It just so happens that Syria is in their in camp, so they want everybody in the West to make an exception to the rule of "no chemical weapons" that all nations collectively agreed violated the common interests of all.

    Ordinarily, Republicans would agree as well. But the right-wing media makes it living out of undermining Obama as a leader, and the Republicans find undermining Obama as a leader comes in handy.

    Particularly when continuing wars in the Middle East are extremely unpopular with the American people, as the Republicans are in the awkward position of being unpopular.
    Well said. My only issue is on our record of punishing chemical weapons use: the Reagan administration had no problem with Iraq using chemical weapons on Iran. And also the Kurds.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Will Assad Disarm?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    After weeks of saber-rattling by both sides, the US and Syria are on the brink of war, awaiting an uncertain vote in Congress and the release of a UN report.

    But on Monday, the last best hope to avert war revealed itself after Russia and Syria responded to an off-the-cuff, hypothetical statement by Secretary of State John Kerry, seemingly ready to give up the chemical weapons that initiated the crisis.

    Will a peaceful settlement pan out, or is this too good to be true?
    It is nonsense, a plan that sounds so palatable on its face but is so impossible to carry off that it prevents future punitive action. Deconstructing and evacuating a nations chemical weapons stockpile is a major logistical task in the best of times and for an arsenal as large and dispersed as Syria's (in the midst of a Civil War) it is an implausible task. Who is going to take custody of the weapons? Who will pay for it? Who will evaluate the process? How will it be carried off?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •