Are we going to war again?

[Lloyd Blankfein]

Just heard that we are going to strike Syria?


So, basically we are starting a war with Iran through a Syrian proxy?


Is this real? What do you guys think is gonna happen here?

[sleewell]

what a joke.

police force of the world again jumping into another countries civil war for no reason.

some groups of the rebels are terrorists, i see no reason to assist them. let them work it out, fix our problems here first instead of jumping into another war.

[Pepi]

I think this one's going to be a very BIG mistake if we strike. Arrogant Prez is also very dangerous.

[Marc G]

they should focus on blocking Russia from assisting the Syrian Gov't instead of getting involved directly IMO

[Lloyd Blankfein]

So this is true then?

I keep getting a feeling that some city in America is going to soon be dominated by Iran due to this.

Then, we can enter another war. Fight 4 of them at once, sweet.

What's the top age of the draft? Fuck

[Diddlybo]

Politicians are funny.

Flashback: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. . . . Any President takes an oath to, 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by [the Bush] Administration." Barack Obama, 20 Dec. 2007

[Marc G]

if they do go to war based on "proof" that the Syrian Gov't did in fact use Chemical Weapons I hope they share said information with the public, I don't think he wants another "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" situation

[sleewell]

the only reason we go to war is for money


where is the money in this situation? do we just have to use our guns and bombs and stuff so they can build more or is there oil there or something?

[gp2112]

Unfortunately, due to "treaties" in regard to NBC weapons we have decided that if another country uses weapons of mass destruction we MUST respond in kind to prevent further use. That "policy" has been in place for years. IMO I think that if some nitwit wants to gas his own people then let him. Just let it be known that we will not, ever, help him out in the future.

We need to get out of the Middle East altogether. They have been fighting since Old Testament times and they will continue to fight until they kill each other off. Let them play/fight in their sandbox. We try to "do good", like we did in Afghanistan after the USSR invaded, we end up fighting the very same people we "helped".

We have enough problems here to deal with.

[Marc G]

Unfortunately, due to "treaties" in regard to NBC weapons we have decided that if another country uses weapons of mass destruction we MUST respond in kind to prevent further use. That "policy" has been in place for years. IMO I think that if some nitwit wants to gas his own people then let him. Just let it be known that we will not, ever, help him out in the future.

We need to get out of the Middle East altogether. They have been fighting since Old Testament times and they will continue to fight until they kill each other off. Let them play/fight in their sandbox. We try to "do good", like we did in Afghanistan after the USSR invaded, we end up fighting the very same people we "helped".

We have enough problems here to deal with.

but you need oil... so sadly that's not going to happen any time soon...

[Schweezly]

So this is true then?

I keep getting a feeling that some city in America is going to soon be dominated by Iran due to this.

Then, we can enter another war. Fight 4 of them at once, sweet.

What's the top age of the draft? Fuck

I think 28. I'm hoping 28. I'll be 29 in 4 months.

[Pepi]

Unfortunately, due to "treaties" in regard to NBC weapons we have decided that if another country uses weapons of mass destruction we MUST respond in kind to prevent further use. That "policy" has been in place for years. IMO I think that if some nitwit wants to gas his own people then let him. Just let it be known that we will not, ever, help him out in the future.

We need to get out of the Middle East altogether. They have been fighting since Old Testament times and they will continue to fight until they kill each other off. Let them play/fight in their sandbox. We try to "do good", like we did in Afghanistan after the USSR invaded, we end up fighting the very same people we "helped".

We have enough problems here to deal with.

This is true ... BUT FUCK, we are broke

[Reverse Entropy]

I don't think Obama wants to be involved. There isn't much enthusiasm from the US military either. There's no scenario that ends with a good outcome and a stable, sane and non-hostile Syrian government. I think this is quite clear to the President.

I think Iran is mostly posturing at this point. One statement from an Iranian official doesn't make for a firm position from their government. Their new President seems quite serious about reducing conflict with the West, what we don't know is whether he will get support for calming things down from their Fearless Ideological Leader.

If anything happens there will be a US strike and some support flights to back up action from Britain and France. Those are the two countries who seem to be taking the real lead on this. We have an alliance obligation to the UK above that of NATO duties. They backed the US for better AND worse when we last asked it from them. Despite our reluctance (as they had then), we're going to be some untrustworthy folks if we ditch them now. Fortunately, I don't think the British people are too enthused about all this either, so it may not come to blows after all.

I don't expect this to add up to a 'real' conflict for the US. Some missile and aircraft strikes (particularly unmanned strikes) and a strict no-fly zone. The Syrian Navy may try to battle, but they will not last 48 hrs. Our subs have been there for months by now.

I hope I'm rigjht. I'm usually close, until some mastermind like $&^%#!! Rumsfeld botches things completely.

[Sasquatch]

we need to pull out of the middle east and only get involved if the international community all agrees and even then, just mash a couple of buttons and send a few missiles over there. no more troops please.

[Sasquatch]

of course, if we are going to attack, can we just take out that little short fuck in n korea who just killed his ex-girlfriend and some other musical performers? why is that so hard, other than the whole China thing?

[ovid9]

I find the distinctions made by treaties hilarious. The civil war in Syria has already killed 100,000+ civilians. Most by the government, but certainly some by the various rebel groups as well.

Now, because chemical weapons were involved OMG WE MUST DO SOMETHING! I understand, guys gassing their own people is bad (though, we didn't seem to mind Saddam gassing his own folks or mind giving Saddam satellite images that showed him where an Iranian breakthrough was going to be so he gassed a bunch of Iranians in the 80s). Its horrible.

But this latest attack is sadly 1% of the total death toll and its certainly not going to be the last group of civilians killed either whether we fling some Tomahawks at them or not. No one wants troops involved and not many besides McCain and a few others even think arming the rebels is a great idea since so many of them are allied with Al Qaeda. Even though its quite possible the CIA has been funneling them weapons for a long time now.

Assad is gambling that none of his atrocities before this have caused us to intervene so he's hoping this one won't either. Even if we do, launching missiles isn't going to solve anything except showing "We won't tolerate chemical weapons usage! But slaughtering your folks with regular weapons is fine."

Its an awful situation, one we hoped was going to go away shortly after it started, but it hasn't, its gotten worse and while I abhor the deaths of innocents in Syria, I don't see how getting involved at this point in any way besides boots on the ground (which I don't want) could make any difference. And even if we did, the specter of an Islamic regime with sympathetic ties to Al Qaeda could come from it.

War sucks for everyone. I wish there were some good solutions so the average Syrian wasn't living in fear for their life but there certainly doesn't seem to be.

[ovid9]

I just caught that on FB. I think like the Oatmeal! This makes me both happy and very very afraid.

[ovid9]

Dude, read every comic he has posted. The Oatmeal is awesome.

I have.

Twice.

He's awesome.

In fact, I have some of his stickers I need to put on my car.

And I need to stop letting the blerch talk me into sitting on my ass drinking beers and eating badly. The blerch is damned persuasive though.

[Marc G]

well... looks like the Brits are out..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

[Reverse Entropy]

War sucks for everyone. I wish there were some good solutions so the average Syrian wasn't living in fear for their life but there certainly doesn't seem to be.

I agree entirely with your post. [and on a grouchy day I would freak Genghis Khan right out]. This may be a long. long civil war.

Look at what happened in the Congo and has sloshed bloodily for years across borders and into neighboring territories. But now, at last, African Union (or League ?) troops are working with the UN to definitively stop specific warlords and armies. The people are so oppressed they aren't hiding the bad guys anymore (sadly they are so butchered they can't fear any more). So the Blue Hats seem to be making considerable progress.

All the big powers may sit it out in Syria, leaving them to take the Congolese route to self governance.

It's looking like the British will not be acting, we'll know more once the UN inspectors come out. France might do anything; they've been very busy lately and are playing very rough with the bad guys all over Africa. I think there's a significant chance of US air and missile strikes, but not much more than that.

[~Abstract~]

God I hope so.

We have entirely too many poor, unemployed, young men in this country.

Besides, we haven't had good news for years. Remember when you could watch news 24/7 and never get bored?
When there was nothing but rockets and AK47's being fired? When you could watch people getting strafed in the streets?

I miss that shit.

And now, our roads and Walmarts are overcrowded with stupid rednecks in sleeveless t-shirts and regular cab pickups.

We need to thin the herd. I think China and Russia and Iran are just the thing.


Go Team!

U-S-A
U-S-A
U-S-A

[Marc G]

I find it funny that France is the only one standing with the US at this point even after all the shit they got for not supporting the war in Iraq.... that being said, the Obama Administration better cross their T's and dot their I's with this one, if they have proof the Gov't was involved with Chemical weapons it better be rock solid or else this will be Iraq alllll over again..

[neilrocks25]

I don't think Obama wants to be involved. There isn't much enthusiasm from the US military either. There's no scenario that ends with a good outcome and a stable, sane and non-hostile Syrian government. I think this is quite clear to the President.

I think Iran is mostly posturing at this point. One statement from an Iranian official doesn't make for a firm position from their government. Their new President seems quite serious about reducing conflict with the West, what we don't know is whether he will get support for calming things down from their Fearless Ideological Leader.

If anything happens there will be a US strike and some support flights to back up action from Britain and France. Those are the two countries who seem to be taking the real lead on this. We have an alliance obligation to the UK above that of NATO duties. They backed the US for better AND worse when we last asked it from them. Despite our reluctance (as they had then), we're going to be some untrustworthy folks if we ditch them now. Fortunately, I don't think the British people are too enthused about all this either, so it may not come to blows after all.

I don't expect this to add up to a 'real' conflict for the US. Some missile and aircraft strikes (particularly unmanned strikes) and a strict no-fly zone. The Syrian Navy may try to battle, but they will not last 48 hrs. Our subs have been there for months by now.

I hope I'm rigjht. I'm usually close, until some mastermind like $&^%#!! Rumsfeld botches things completely.

I would say spot on, well until the uk Dropped out

[neilrocks25]

This is interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23892288

[neilrocks25]

This is interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23892288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

after seeing this I am pissed my government is not doing anything

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594.

napalming schools is just unhuman.