urban.derelict: [lh6.googleusercontent.com image 468x350]

Rumsfeld, you're over the line. That's a foul.

Sorry...Wrong thread :(

WE WILL SEND THEM A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER!!!!

/Oh and this proves that Bush and Colin Powell were right.

The US isn't the only one contemplating actions.

This would be really retarded for Syria to do. Russia and China would almost have to abandon them at that point, which means Operation Libya II would start about 5 minutes later.

Whiskey Pete: Sorry...Wrong thread :(

Eh, it could work. Half points.

And how do you know Iraq Syria has chemical weapons of mass destruction?


"Uh, we checked the receipts".

-Bill Hicks

Syria: Good. Our first catch of the day.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: And how do you know Iraq Syria has chemical weapons of mass destruction?


"Uh, we checked the receipts".

-Bill Hicks

Well, the Syrian stuff probably says "Product of USSR Best by 8/1/1978"

make youtube vid of fake chemical attack, hilarity ensues?

This one was in Kim Kardashian's hoo-hoo-dilly. Handle with extreme caution.

TehBoognish: make youtube vid of fake chemical attack, hilarity Hillary ensues?

I'll interpret that as going 'weapons free' with cruise missiles or special teams on the regime's stockpiles and command structure. Cross the line, the international community will end you, and the chips will fall where they may.

Our actions will likely be little if anything depending on what Russia does in response. Given Obama's track record he will likely stand back and do nothing preferring to allow other nations to handle it unless he is pressed into action like in Libya. Even in Libya the US involvement seemed limited to that of the other Nations. That is what I predict anyway. It seems like the lack of resources traded on the global market by Syria or that pass through Syria and the close ties with Russia account for the reasons very little effort has gone into resolving this matter.

Double secret probation?

If unspecified, I suppose we'll have to guess where it goes from here...

/Ja, that's why they call Hillary; she is expert!

Syria won't do it. It would cost them all of their allies (except maybe Iran) and they know that would mean the end of the regime over night.

This is not 'Nam, Smokey, there are rules.

If Syria does use chemical weapons, i hope they stamp a big "Made in Iraq" marker on the side.

Could you imagine if a made-in-Iraq chemical weapon was used by Syria to kill protesters? The internet might actually explode.

So killing each other with bullets, fire, and bombs is still okay. Got it.

Funny how it's still OK to kill people with bombs and bullets.

Damn you Hydra!

I'd be more concerned about what rivers flow through and out of Syria when the talk is about nasty chemicals. And the Chernobyl faction of Russian diplomacy.

I don't care, as long as we get into the round robin.

CruiserTwelve: I don't care, as long as we get into the round robin.

Dios mio, man. Bashar and me...we're gonna fark you up!

You try any of your crazy shiat with us - you flash your predator out on the skies - I'll take it away from you and reprogram it and send it back to you till it goes BOOM.

Remember this is the president who said he'd go into Pakistan to whack bin Laden if necessary even without their permission and did it.
I don't hink I'd piss this guy off. He's no Internet tough guy.

CigaretteSmokingMan: Funny how it's still OK to kill people with bombs and bullets.

WMDs are a special case. Unless and until they her used, the World Police should keep their noses out. Syrians, and no on else, have the right to settle the matter of governance in Syria.

Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 712x960]

That's...depressing.

You know, man, Syria has emotional problems beyond pacifism. They're delicate, man!

We'll send a strongly worded apology!

Don't bring chemicals to a nuke fight.

Say what you will about the tenets of Ba'aathism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

internut scholar: Don't bring chemicals to a nuke fight.

You know, if you think about it, if you have an area contaminated by chemical or biological agents, a nuke would probably be the best way to decontaminate it. The fallout might be a problem, but let's think out of the box, here.

AKA, Secretary Clinton issues a strongly worded vague non-warning warning?

Nightsweat: Remember this is the president who said he'd go into Pakistan to whack bin Laden if necessary even without their permission and did it.
I don't hink I'd piss this guy off. He's no Internet tough guy.

Good Lord, the "R's in word, thought and deed" hate when you remind them of that.

Hydra: So killing each other with bullets, fire, and bombs is still okay. Got it.

On battlefields with only uniformed combatants facing each other, often you have over a hundred bullets fired for each combat death. Shooting is about the most discriminatory form of war we have.

Weapons of mass destruction are not discriminatory. In fact, soldiers are less vulnerable than civilians, due to training and equipment ( gas masks etc)

Nightsweat: Remember this is the president who said he'd go into Pakistan to whack bin Laden if necessary even without their permission and did it.
I don't hink I'd piss this guy off. He's no Internet tough guy.

But I really don't see how an escalation on their part changes the factors the US has been citing as an excuse for not participating. For example - the US has cited geography and a disorganized group of rebels as (some of the) reasons why intervention is problematic. A Syrian escalation doesn't necessarily change the geography nor does it change the rebel group structure.

CigaretteSmokingMan: Damn you Hydra!

Just a little faster on the draw there. :)


Holocaust Agnostic: WMDs are a special case. Unless and until they her used, the World Police should keep their noses out. Syrians, and no on else, have the right to settle the matter of governance in Syria.

Why does that make it a special case? "You can only kill each other in the 'nice' ways that we approve of; otherwise, we'll send you a letter telling you how we don't approve." That's stupid. It shouldn't be HOW they're killing each other that's important but that they're killing each other at all.

Keep in mind that I'm not even advocating for the US or anyone else to get involved here. I'm just addressing the inconsistency of denouncing and possibly intervening in the event of WMDs being used, but standing by and doing nothing while rows of tanks roll over people instead.

/considering the ties Assad's regime has to the Chinese and Russians and the ties the Syrian rebels have to the CIA, the Syrian people are really the lowest group in the pecking order who are actually involved in anything here
//aside from greasing the treads of Assad's tanks with their blood, of course

Look at it this way: chemical weapons are so nasty that neither Hitler nor Stalin wanted to go there.

StopLurkListen: On battlefields with only uniformed combatants facing each other, often you have over a hundred bullets fired for each combat death. Shooting is about the most discriminatory form of war we have.

Weapons of mass destruction are not discriminatory. In fact, soldiers are less vulnerable than civilians, due to training and equipment ( gas masks etc)

The 19th century called and wants its warfare style back.

Most of the world: "You send a WOMAN to do your forceful negotiating? Here are some flowers, now leave us so we can talk man stuff."

well, the UN just announced they're pulling all non-essential staff, so something's up

Hydra: CigaretteSmokingMan: Damn you Hydra!

Just a little faster on the draw there. :)


Holocaust Agnostic: WMDs are a special case. Unless and until they her used, the World Police should keep their noses out. Syrians, and no on else, have the right to settle the matter of governance in Syria.

Why does that make it a special case? "You can only kill each other in the 'nice' ways that we approve of; otherwise, we'll send you a letter telling you how we don't approve." That's stupid. It shouldn't be HOW they're killing each other that's important but that they're killing each other at all.

Keep in mind that I'm not even advocating for the US or anyone else to get involved here. I'm just addressing the inconsistency of denouncing and possibly intervening in the event of WMDs being used, but standing by and doing nothing while rows of tanks roll over people instead.

/considering the ties Assad's regime has to the Chinese and Russians and the ties the Syrian rebels have to the CIA, the Syrian people are really the lowest group in the pecking order who are actually involved in anything here
//aside from greasing the treads of Assad's tanks with their blood, of course

What aren't you getting about the unique propensity of certain sorts of arms to have ramifications beyond borders? If your neighbors drinking water is suddenly worthless cause you got frisky with the nerve agents, expect an unpleasant phonecall.

/TIL Assad is not Syrian and the Assyrian army is not Syrian and the rebels are not syrian
//Oh yeah, because it sure does take two years to resolve the situation when its all machinegunning schoolbuses full of orphans and puppies. Yep. That's exactly the situation in the ground.

keenerb: If Syria does use chemical weapons, i hope they stamp a big "Made in Iraq" marker on the side.

Isn't that where all of the WMDs were sent to right before we invaded Iraq?

Assad, you're getting a drone.

ArkPanda: Look at it this way: chemical weapons are so nasty that neither Hitler nor Stalin wanted to go there.

Well the Red Army was downwind of a million Germans eating cabbage three times a day...

Whiskey Pete: Sorry...Wrong thread :(

No - actually, it was a perfectly good post for a Fark thread like this.

/calmer than you, Dude

//calmer than you