Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[HarryCallahan]

Obama should have just kept his mouth shut and not proclaim the existence of any such "red-line" in the first place. But now that he has, Obama feels compelled to follow his already-made promise. The United States needs to quit thinking that they have something to prove.

Same thing happened at the end of WWII. FDR made a remark about Japan's "Unconditional Surrender" he died Truman took over and when the Japanese were tying to surrender and gain some American concessions, Truman invoked FDR's remark and that ended in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[gigantes]

@ridonks, et al,
was there ever any further debate upon my idea that israel would be a dreadful aggressor upon this aggression... which will not stand, man?

[no pun intended]

Same thing happened at the end of WWII. FDR made a remark about Japan's "Unconditional Surrender" he died Truman took over and when the Japanese were tying to surrender and gain some American concessions, Truman invoked FDR's remark and that ended in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

True, but that shouldn't give Obama an open door for wanton destruction. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were an audacious move at the time, but it set the United States on a slippery slope for controversial war tactics. Reckless intervention in Syria will only slide the United States down further the slope, and that's a chance not too many are looking forward to.

[niko]

Same thing happened at the end of WWII. FDR made a remark about Japan's "Unconditional Surrender" he died Truman took over and when the Japanese were tying to surrender and gain some American concessions, Truman invoked FDR's remark and that ended in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That's an interesting thought albeit not true at all. The japanese government was completely neutered at this time, the millitary complex was not going to essentially remove their existence. Japan was trying to surrender, yes japanese people wanted to surrender, the government wanted to, the millitary was not going to.

If this was true it would be a huge bone of contention all over for japanese, for anti bomb people, etc. And it's not at all because it's really twisting a situation's facts around.

I'm 100% against any action toward Syria but your comparison isn't valid.

[KevinNYC]

Military wise, no bueno.

It's not necessarily that simple. The point of that Clauwitz quote is that when formulating your strategy you need to consider both.

Another way to put it might be if you get the politics right, it will make you stronger militarily.

[gigantes]

True, but that shouldn't give Obama an open door for wanton destruction. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were an audacious move at the time, but it set the United States on a slippery slope for controversial war tactics. Reckless intervention in Syria will only slide the United States down further the slope, and that's a chance not too many are looking forward to.

- one order of fried wantons
- one large hot and sour soup
- two small fried rice specials, one shrimp, one pork
- one large general tso's, extra spicy!
- ten pupu platters for our ISHiot brothers
- twenty rolls of extra-ply charmin's

this is my treat for the holiday sunday. anything else anyone wants before they get off the line?

[no pun intended]

- one order of fried wantons
- one large hot and sour soup
- two small fried rice specials, one shrimp, one pork
- one large general tso's, extra spicy!
- ten pupu platters for our ISHiot brothers
- twenty rolls of extra-ply charmin's

this is my treat for the holiday sunday. anything else anyone wants before they get off the line?

[gigantes]

can i get a hot tub?
http://31.media.tumblr.com/0dbe65650...ni4po1_500.gif

look in the bag of fortune cookies, bro.

[HarryCallahan]

That's an interesting thought albeit not true at all. The japanese government was completely neutered at this time, the millitary complex was not going to essentially remove their existence. Japan was trying to surrender, yes japanese people wanted to surrender, the government wanted to, the millitary was not going to.

If this was true it would be a huge bone of contention all over for japanese, for anti bomb people, etc. And it's not at all because it's really twisting a situation's facts around.

I'm 100% against any action toward Syria but your comparison isn't valid.

That's your argument? That because you haven't heard it, then it must not be true?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-U.../dp/067976285X

[daily]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-U.../dp/067976285X

Oh f*ck I'm dying here..

This thread has officially gone off the rails when we start quoting that crackpots work

[niko]

That's your argument? That because you haven't heard it, then it must not be true?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-U.../dp/067976285X

Yes, somewhere along the 70 or so years since then people who have spent their whole life against the war might have mentioned the fact they were trying to surrender as they were bombed. No one talks about it because it's a rewriting of history after the fact.

We can go back and forth if the bomb was necessary and you probably have my opinion dead wrong, but going back and rewriting the situation to remove any ambiquity is just wrong and tbh, kind of lazy.

And note: Obama should go to Congress if he is not 100% decided on an action. Congress in theory represents the american people, and the people don't want to attack Syria. I don't get how being prudent makes one week.

[LoPro4u2c]

Attacking Syria is just a waste of time now. By now, Syria has moved the important military weapons that they hold dear, the technology that's important to the regime, electronics that they use on a regular basis, etc. If Obama does decide to attack Syria, the locations that are targeted will have nothing but old military weapons and shit that the Assad regime no longer uses.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Syria has a location filled with military goods that the Syrians want the Americans to attack only for the Americans to find out that all that military crap is outdated.

[niko]

This is way before the attack published by Dailymail.. Can't find the original article.

I don't doubt the US is looking for provocation but this falls into the "i will believe anything that supports my point" bucket of evidence. Made up shit on top of made up shit cover in made up shit.

[niko]

Anyone see the video of the rebel ripping the heart and liver of the syrian soldier then eat it Can we stay out of this please

This is my view 100%.

[oh the horror]

So on the news they're interviewing some Joe Politician, and dude says "I don't see how this would be a threat to our national security"


So....involving yourself in a conflict that isn't your own, that is intertwined with various other factors....bombing them...you don't see how that could have consequences?