Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

cadbren wrote:
What happens if evidence shows that the rebels were responsible for the gas attacks?

Does the USA start targeting rebel strongholds?

Well, considering we intercepted phone calls from Syrian Army units saying they did the attack... I'd say we probably don't have to worry about that.

 djones520 wrote:

cadbren wrote:
What happens if evidence shows that the rebels were responsible for the gas attacks?

Does the USA start targeting rebel strongholds?

Well, considering we intercepted phone calls from Syrian Army units saying they did the attack... I'd say we probably don't have to worry about that.

That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.

cadbren wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

cadbren wrote:
What happens if evidence shows that the rebels were responsible for the gas attacks?

Does the USA start targeting rebel strongholds?

Well, considering we intercepted phone calls from Syrian Army units saying they did the attack... I'd say we probably don't have to worry about that.

That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.

Well... ok then.

Not ok really, you screwed up with the whole WMDs in Iraq, helped kick off a civil war there, quite what has been achieved in Afghanistan of lasting note is anyone's guess and now it's off to Syria is it?

Why did the Brits pull out? Because the evidence pointing the finger at Assad is crap, Obama wants to go in and help his terrorist Saudi friends and is looking for an excuse.

You can think what you like about that, there's more to this than your side of events.

cadbren wrote:
That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.

It's not always lies; sometimes it was just incompetence.

I'll add that supporting the side who has the support of Al Qaeda (remember those guys) and the Muslim Brotherhood (who've been busy destroying as many churches, convents and christian schools in Egypt they can) is not what I'd call the best thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

cadbren wrote:
That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.

It's not always lies; sometimes it was just incompetence.

Friendly fire and collateral damage are examples of incompetence. Sending people out to kill (and die) based on insufficient evidence and claiming your sources to be impeccable to the public is lying.

So Cadbren, you're in the "maybe" column for Syria, then? Pencil you in?

 Ouze wrote:
So Cadbren, you're in the "maybe" column for Syria, then? Pencil you in?

I admit, I laughed.

cadbren wrote:

That's nice and I don't believe that. Too many lies from your government to make them a credible source of information.

Considering you live in a country where the government is willing to break it's own laws when the US says to, that doesn't mean much. How's Kim Dotcom these days?


On the flip side, what if they told the truth, and by inaction, thousands more were killed that might not have been? I know Uncle Joe had no problem brushing off the deaths of few thousand (a day) but what does that say about everyone when we're saying that we're perfectly OK with the deaths of thousands of people so long as it doesn't bother us any (because THERE'S a philosophy that won't come back and bite someone on the ass eventually).

cadbren wrote:
Sending people out to kill (and die) based on insufficient evidence and claiming your sources to be impeccable to the public is lying.

In a minimal sense that only requires incompetence.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

The SNI I know is that Seneca Nation of Indians, but I don't recall them being in the Treaty of Versailles.

No, we were not. Which was the point. England, instead of including it's allies in the treaty or insisting on any provisions for them, pretty much left everyone to swing.

The SNI was subject to the US Federal Government taxes at the time, and continues to be so. As such the idea that England refused to include you only indicates that you believe the SNI to be more important than it is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Considering you live in a country where the government is willing to break it's own laws when the US says to, that doesn't mean much. How's Kim Dotcom these days?

Another black mark against the US government and ours for playing lackey too. Dotcom is still living large in his mansion and was involved in the campaign against extra government surveillance.

If the Syria situation requires international intervention then the way forward would be to stabilise the government by supporting Assad and defeating the terrorist backed rebels. Then deal with the Ba'athists. Given that Robert Mugabe is still in power in Zimbabwe, I wouldn't hold my breath on the UN or anyone else doing what's best for the average person. A lot of inconsistency to put it mildly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So Cadbren, you're in the "maybe" column for Syria, then? Pencil you in?

You guys really need to work on solutions that don't require lead.

cadbren wrote:


You guys really need to work on solutions that don't require lead.

Again, I laughed. You chaps really are witty today.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.

Who's us? Are you a British politician?

Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault.

Uh, no. You're thinking of Delta and SF ODAs. We absolutely do not lack for "vanguard" units. Hell, with MARSOC becoming a real thing, we've got even more now.

In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division.

Also no. And Bravo Two Zero is never a good example of the SAS' awesomeness.

Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?

It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.

Every British soldier, sailor, and airman I've met has been a stand-up guy. Same goes for the Aussies, the Poles, and the Norwegians. The civilians (and especially civilian political leadership) behind them, however? Not so much. Might've been them I was referring to as weenies.

 Frazzled wrote:
I have to repsect the British system. The PM actually called a vote and the Parliament actually voted.

In the US - the land of Freedom HURR!-no call to vote.
in the US the Congress doesn't unilaterally meet to discuss the issue.

So, to sum up, you're saying Britain is better than America, and you wish you had been born an Englishman?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Interesting developments over here that further support the theory given earlier.

Apparently a number of Government Ministers voted AGAINST action in Syria. And another two senior Ministers simply didn't show up to vote despite being in the building at the time. They claim they didn't hear the bell, but it seems extremely coincidental that nobody noticed them missing, their meeting ran the same length of time as the vote, and the House of Commons staff insist all the systems are working perfectly.

Some of the other Conservative MP's who were absent have given some scarcely believable reasons as well.

Now six or seven ministerial votes might not sound like much total, but when the motion was only lost by thirteen votes? And when this was supposedly on something so important? And those six or seven votes make up roughly a third of the Cabinet? I smell a rat.

It's also interesting to note Cameron is now basically saying to Washington that his hands are tied because the Commons took a vote. Yet curiously enough, the motion for discussing it later on was also shot down by Conservative MP's, meaning it won't come up again unless there's a massive change of circumstance.

BBC wrote:David Cameron and US President Barack Obama have discussed Parliament's block on UK involvement in possible military action in Syria, the BBC understands.

The men spoke by phone for 15 minutes, and the tone of the conversation was said to be friendly.

The prime minister reiterated he still wanted to see a strong response to the suspected chemical weapons attack.

But he also explained the parliamentary process to the US president, who said he understood the PM's predicament.

Well played Mr Cameron, methinks.

Not this again!

Two of the ministers missed the vote because they were sitting in a sound-proofed room. One of those said ministers drove back from France to be there, so it hardly sounds like a masterplan to miss the vote. Obviously, you disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, Cameron was humiliated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Seaward - I'm amazed that you actually consider us 'weenies'.

Who's us? Are you a British politician?

Unfortunately for you, it means that now you've lost your vanguard troops. Now I'm not saying US troops aren't capable - far from it. But taking the 1st Gulf, 2nd Gulf and Afghanistan as examples, in all three conflicts, it was the British Army who was at the forefront with US troops spearheading the assault.

Uh, no. You're thinking of Delta and SF ODAs. We absolutely do not lack for "vanguard" units. Hell, with MARSOC becoming a real thing, we've got even more now.

In the 1st Gulf War, you'll remember that it was 22nd SAS, B Squadron's Bravo Two Zero that were the first boots on the ground in Iraq, swiftly followed by the 1 (UK) Armoured Division.

Also no. And Bravo Two Zero is never a good example of the SAS' awesomeness.

Next up, in Iraq (2nd Gulf), 1st Armoured was right there alongside the lead elements of the US troops crossing the border, and if I remember rightly Basra, being the objective of the 1st Armoured Divsion, was the scene of the heaviest fighting of the campaign - and the British Army still took it before the US Army took Baghdad. Finally, again in Afghanistan, the SAS was again working right alongside US Special Forces. Yet you still think that we're just 'weenies' that have little impact?

It's pretty insulting really that the US has such a low opinion of the UK forces because the we in the UK tend on the whole to have a high regard of the US military. It's insulting even more so that the US seems only to view the British Army as a simple vanguard to clear out the hard bits they don't want to deal with. For a small nation, I'd wager our military still packs a punch, but there again, we ought to considering our experience of over 1000 years of warfare.

Every British soldier, sailor, and airman I've met has been a stand-up guy. Same goes for the Aussies, the Poles, and the Norwegians. The civilians (and especially civilian political leadership) behind them, however? Not so much. Might've been them I was referring to as weenies.

Well, you won't have to worry about British involvement this time. We will fight to the last American marine in pursuit of our foreign policy goals!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For Obama, this has been a blunder on the scale of Jimmy Carter. If he had let the British use the same intelligence, the vote might have swung the other way. Instead, he lost a key international ally, and has allowed himself to be out-manoeuvred at home, with congress demanding a vote as well.

From a military point of view, we're looking at a short, scale attack, that will probably achieve feth all! What a shambles. God knows what candidate Obama must think!

@Seaward - No, I'm not a British Politician, but considering your initial post was:

Seaward wrote:So I'm sure that means we can enjoy a nice, peaceful Syrian intervention without these weenies telling us what to do, right? There won't be any bs, "Do as I say, not as I do," out of Britain.

I'm assuming that the lack of specification was just a generalised rant against Britain in general. Hence, as a British citizen, then yeah I was gonna say something. However, if it was just a go at the politicians, then be my guest and have some apologies from me as a side-order.

But I have to say, that in all 3 of my stated examples, if you think that the British Army rolled in days after the US then you would be wrong. In the Iraq War, the first combat troops into Iraq were first the special forces as you say (US, UK and other European Nations), followed up by the Invasion proper. From what I can see, the first attacks were against the Al-Faw Peninsula, with the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Polish Navy leading amphibious assaults there. Further down the line, at Umm Quasr, the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade and the USMC 15th MEU supported each other in a combined assault. Finally, the 16 Air Assault Brigade was deployed to take the southern oilfields of Iraq.

TL;DR - How was it not the British Army who was with the US Army/Marine Corps at the spearhead (You'll note my original statement didn't say we were first in, but it said that we were first in alongside the US.)

Of course, you are right that Bravo Two Zero isn't a portrayal of how awesome the SAS is, (Although, to be fair to them, it wasn't them who screwed up, it was just that their radio didn't work, so they didn't know to pull out when the Op was scrubbed), but it wasn't intended that way - in fact I was just saying that they were the first in.

But, if there is one thing I do agree with you about, it's that the politicians behind the British Army seem to have absolutely no clue how to effectively orchestrate a ground war. They're fine at starting wars, but once that's done (Most probably against the advice of the British Army) they're reluctant to provide the resources to continue said conflict.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This is were its starts to get wrong. ''Instances within that broader category''? So we could start comparing a single murder with such things?

Because people have a tendency to lump every atrocity the Germans committed against civilians under that broad umbrella. Particularly when the same perpetrators are involved such as SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger. Point of fact, not all of their inhumanity had any relationship to a broader 'plan', they were just sent in whenever the command felt they needed to send a message and let Dirlewanger make it up as his men went. He was, after all, a man sent to the concentration camps for raping children, only to be released, given a brigade made up of men guilty of murder and worse, and turned loose on Eastern Europe, specializing in pacification via slaughtering every living human being in the area. This really does not fall under the holocaust proper, as they made no real distinction victims, they raped and killed everyone they found, committing crimes that even horrified their fellow SS. Estimates run between 30k and 120k civilians were tortured and killed before he was charged with suppressing Warsaw, where they achieved 40,000 killed in just two days, including the incident at Wola Hospital.

While Syria has not yet becomes this bad, the same inhumanity is at work. I have little doubt that if they had released such weapons to a man like Dirlewanger, he'd have used gas as well. Give the men who ordered the civilians in Syria gassed three years and means to do it, and you'll see them piled up a pyramid of skulls to rival anything Dirlewanger managed.

Nobody lumps anything other than the Holocaust under that umbrella. Most people dont even know exactly what they did besides the Holocaust. You cant even compare Syria to Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS crimes, which are still on a whole different level and well into the millions. The Dirlewanger unit is different from the Holocaust, that is a fact. But its still not on any scale Syria is approaching. Comparing only a single units warcrimes with Syria is still wrong, because it was only one of the dozens in WWII with such a record. This is just devaluating the sacrifice and victims of the single most horrible event in human history. There are far more comparable wars and crimes Syria can be compared with, where we dont have a ''tendency to lump'', so why not just stick to those?

Seems Putin is putting more pressure on Obama. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833

Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US claims that Syria's regime used chemical weapons, describing them as "utter nonsense".

Mr Putin challenged Washington to present the evidence behind its claims to the United Nations Security Council.

US President Barack Obama has said he is considering military action against Syria based on intelligence reports.

The Russia leader's remarks came after UN chemical weapons inspectors ended their visit to Syria.

They crossed into neighbouring Lebanon after four days of inspections, including investigations of what happened in the Damascus suburbs on 21 August.

Hundreds of people including children were killed in the suspected chemical weapons attacks, which the US says was carried out by the Syrian government.

Syria said the US claim was "full of lies", blaming rebels for the attacks.

'Trump card'
The inspectors' departure from Syria removes both a practical and a political obstacle to the launch of US-led military action, says the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Lebanon.

But speaking to journalists in the Russian far-eastern city of Vladivostok, Mr Putin urged Mr Obama - as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate - to think about future victims in Syria before using force.

He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the 21 August attack.

"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said.

In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."

Russia - a key ally of Syria - has previously warned that "any unilateral military action bypassing the UN Security Council" would be a "direct violation of international law".

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said his country will defend itself against any Western "aggression".

 dogma wrote:

The SNI was subject to the US Federal Government taxes at the time, and continues to be so. As such the idea that England refused to include you only indicates that you believe the SNI to be more important than it is.

I meant the Treaty of Ghent. My apologies. Versailles was WW1, Ghent was the War of 1812. As far as taxes go, dogma, actually no, natives (in general) were not required to pay income tax before 1924, because the US didn't offer them citizenship before that, without either first abandoning their native affiliations or joining the US military. In 1924 we were permitted to have duel citizenship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Dirlewanger unit is different from the Holocaust, that is a fact. But its still not on any scale Syria is approaching. Comparing only a single units warcrimes with Syria is still wrong, because it was only one of the dozens in WWII with such a record.

Scale, yes. Overall it's smaller. However, it's one incident. Other than things like the Warsaw uprising, the average incidents of Dirlewanger were all on the same order (a few hundred to a thousand civilians killed). They just did it more frequently. If we look at the over all numbers (Syria is clocking in at, supposedly, around 100,000 killed) it's starting to get close and within a much shorter time span. Now, granted, this is only for a single unit, but...

Also: I'd say that not comparing the two cheapens the deaths of the people currently dying.


Vladamir avoiding the obvious:

"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions,"

And have been stalled for weeks without any noticeable gain.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

As far as taxes go, dogma, actually no, natives (in general) were not required to pay income tax before 1924, because the US didn't offer them citizenship before that, without either first abandoning their native affiliations or joining the US military. In 1924 we were permitted to have duel citizenship.

Since when has the US federal government required a person to be citizen in order to pay a tax?

Note, we're not just talking about income tax.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I meant the Treaty of Ghent. My apologies. Versailles was WW1, Ghent was the War of 1812.

You were only off by 100 years.

 whembly wrote:
I just find it funny that:

Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.

Gee, I wonder if maybe it could have something to do with the fact that "Cowboy President" and his reasons for a war in Iraq were completely unjustifiable after the fact?

 dogma wrote:

Since when has the US federal government required a person to be citizen in order to pay a tax?

Note, we're not just talking about income tax.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Dirlewanger unit is different from the Holocaust, that is a fact. But its still not on any scale Syria is approaching. Comparing only a single units warcrimes with Syria is still wrong, because it was only one of the dozens in WWII with such a record.

Scale, yes. Overall it's smaller. However, it's one incident. Other than things like the Warsaw uprising, the average incidents of Dirlewanger were all on the same order (a few hundred to a thousand civilians killed). They just did it more frequently. If we look at the over all numbers (Syria is clocking in at, supposedly, around 100,000 killed) it's starting to get close and within a much shorter time span. Now, granted, this is only for a single unit, but...

Also: I'd say that not comparing the two cheapens the deaths of the people currently dying.

I'm on the opposite side of that statement. But this is more a difference on a personal level, so views differ a lot.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Vladamir avoiding the obvious:

"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions,"

And have been stalled for weeks without any noticeable gain.

I think Putin is as happy as a little girl on christmas morning. First he gets Snowden into Russia and out of the hands of the US. Now he gets icing on the cake by blocking any relevant responses the US and the EU try to put on the table. I wonder if he even still cares about Syria and is just doing all this to annoy the US. Higher tech Russian gear like those surface to air batteries dont seem to be arriving anymore.

 Ketara wrote:

cadbren wrote:


You guys really need to work on solutions that don't require lead.

Again, I laughed. You chaps really are witty today.

I'll take credit for this turn of event... There's nothing a SalmaHayek.gif can't fix.

Well it can't fix the fact that I'm still glued to the screen.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I just find it funny that:

Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.

Gee, I wonder if maybe it could have something to do with the fact that "Cowboy President" and his reasons for a war in Iraq were completely unjustifiable after the fact?

Ah... but you see... you got a very charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would reclaim our world's "Prestige" after loathsome monsters of Bush & Co... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without our staunchest allies...

This is very apt:


I'm already on record that we need to do something... This is a nice summary:

It is important to note that despite the moral depravity of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, none of America’s vital interests is impacted by their use within Syria. Obama’s pledge last year to view the use of chemical weapons as a tripwire that would automatically cause the US to intervene militarily in the war in Syria was made without relation to any specific US interest.

But once Obama made his pledge, other US interests became inextricably linked to US retaliation for such a strike. The interests now on the line are America’s deterrent power and strategic credibility. If Obama responds in a credible way to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, those interests will be advanced. If he does not, US deterrent power will become a laughing stock and US credibility will be destroyed.

I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s "different".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
Well it can't fix the fact that I'm still glued to the screen.

Right there with ya brother! I aim to please.

whembly wrote:Right there with ya brother! I aim to please.

Well I'm gonna have to move soon - I'm knockered... Sorry knackered.

Dare I say then, why should the use of chemical weapons trigger an auto US response, but not the use of landmines or other such collateral weapons? I'd like to point out though, this is just a curiosity of mine, I'm still on the fence about whether or not the West should intervene (I say the west, because although the UK is out currently, I'm lead to believe that a 2nd vote could take place after the UN inspectors have delivered a report in full).

Well Obama is going to wait untill the congress has voted on the issue. With him at the g8 summit that probably means action will not happen this week. Anyone expect him to win the vote or lose? Im leaning a bit towards losing Cameron style.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23916752

Obama to seek Congress vote on Syria
US President Barack Obama says he is to seek Congressional authorisation for military operations against Syria.

He says he supports the principle of acting in Syria, and Congress will debate and vote on the matter. Congress reconvenes on 9 September.

The US says its intelligence reports indicate the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks on 21 August in which 1,429 people died.

The Syrian government denies it was behind the attacks and blames rebels.

UN inspectors have now left Syria with samples from site visits, which will go to laboratories in Europe for testing.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well Obama is going to wait untill the congress has voted on the issue. With him at the g8 summit that probably means action will not happen this week. Anyone expect him to win the vote or lose? Im leaning a bit towards losing Cameron style.

It's hard to tell which way this Congress will jump. A lot of the people most likely to play partisan politics are also owned lock, stock, and barrel by the defense industry. His own party has been building an image of social justice and fairness for all, and that goes right out the window if they sit back and let atrocities happen, particularly since they've been fighting a public perception of them as ineffectual and spineless. Polls suggest that the US public wants something done to end the war in Syria, but doesn't want to send troops to end it. All of the two faced weasels are sensitive to the loss of face internationally by the US if nothing is done, if only because it tarnishes the office they all want to be the next one to move into but also worry if this effects their own chances of re-election.


Sadly, morality and human lives (both military and civilian) are way down their list of priorities.

 whembly wrote:
Ah... but you see... you got a very charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would reclaim our world's "Prestige" after loathsome monsters of Bush & Co... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without our staunchest allies...

(snip)

I'm already on record that we need to do something...

(snip)

I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s "different".

And, as much as I'd like to give you a pass after that riveting gif (which I have saved for further research in my bunk) I feel I need to point out the inconsistency you, and several others, have displayed.

In this very thread, we've determined Obama is a coward who who fails to act to save lives because he's also a warmonger starting wars of aggression into things that are none of our business yet he's also Jimmy Carter somehow because he let the UK parliament vote against it (lol, btw) and he's indecisive for seeking congressional approval even though we always argue that the president needs firmer checks by Congress. You guys are attempting to have your cake and eat it too because it's more important to establish that Obama is bad then it is to be consistent in what it is you want.

I get that this is an ideal situation for libertarians, conservatives and other republicans because we all know that no matter what the president does (including nothing), it's going to be pretty unpopular and useful as a partisan beatstick... but it doesn't always have to be point scoring for the team.

Its politics. Everything is fair game for political point scoring, because you know darn well the other team doesn't have any scruples about when they score political points.

 Ouze wrote:
[
And, as much as I'd like to give you a pass after that riveting gif (which I have saved for further research in my bunk) I feel I need to point out the inconsistency you, and several others, have displayed.

What inconsistency? I think I've already stated that if Obama decides to engage with Syria, I'd be okay with it. o.O

In this very thread, we've determined Obama is a coward who who fails to act to save lives because he's also a warmonger starting wars of aggression into things that are none of our business yet he's also Jimmy Carter somehow because he let the UK parliament vote against it (lol, btw) and he's indecisive for seeking congressional approval even though we always argue that the president needs firmer checks by Congress. You guys are attempting to have your cake and eat it too because it's more important to establish that Obama is bad then it is to be consistent in what it is you want.

Eh... look... I have a great unease with the schadenfreude being experienced in many corners of the web of this, but how 'bout first recognizing the inconsistency on Obama's part as well. He flubbed this one and now he's trying to dig his way out.

I get that this is an ideal situation for libertarians, conservatives and other republicans because we all know that no matter what the president does (including nothing), it's going to be pretty unpopular and useful as a partisan beatstick... but it doesn't always have to be point scoring for the team.

Yeah... that's true.

Lemme have my fun would ya? Need some more dancing boobies? Okay, I give thee, Jennifer Lawrence's bouncing... bouncers.: