"We're not getting involved in the civil war." Jesus H. baldheaded CHRIST.

[WilliamPitt]

"We're not getting involved in the civil war."

Seeing that all over the place all of a sudden, and it is by far and away the most pathetic gob of doublespeaking half-assery I've heard in years.

Shitheads: when you bomb one side of a civil war - even one bomb - YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE FUCKING CIVIL WAR.

It is 100% a binary situation. 0 = no bombs, not involved / 1 = bombs, involved.

You can't get a little pregnant, and you can't bomb one side in a civil war without helping the other side.

Just fucking stop.

[Warpy]

1. Yeah, it's bullshit. With Afghanistan and Iraq winding down

the MIC wants ordinance depleted so they can make money by making more of it.

I'm so angry at Kerry right now I can hardly see straight. What the HELL is that man thinking? IS he thinking?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. "What the HELL is that man thinking? IS he thinking?"

What is his boss thinking??

[OnlinePoker]

38. He's acting as the voice of the President

This is the same thing Powell did in the run-up to Iraq for Bush. If the bombing starts, it will be Obama with authority from Congress who gives the go-ahead. Kerry is just stating the administration's position.

[Ocelot]

48. Yes, exactly.

Same shit, different President.

[Eddie Haskell]

49. They have something on him.

And it must make Jerry Sandusky's shower look like a baptismal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. ODS

classic case

[CrispyQ]

85. It shows that our government has been totally seized by the corporate elite.

Kerry, Obama, Congress, they are just actors on a stage in a play called "Democracy." If the MIC wants this war, then we will have this war. I'm trying to tell myself there's still a reason to vote, but today I just don't see it.

[Warpy]

90. Good point, great slogan

and I can't think of any other time when 91% of the population were against a war that the elite went ahead and fought it. They always managed to gin up at least 50-50 support.

[randome]

2. My favorite is "God fuck it!"

Yeah, that's a bogus argument. We may not be taking sides but there is no doubt that bombing one side would make a difference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

19. There absolutely IS doubt that we will make a POSITIVE difference.

How, exactly, are we going to make a difference by bombing Syria?

Will we be able to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles? No.

Will we be able to decapitate the Assad regime? Maybe - but what will replace it, and how much suffering will that entail?

Will the ongoing suffering of Syrian civilians and foreign refugees be lessened by our bombing? No - it will get WORSE for them.

You only say "there is no doubt that bombing...would make a difference" because you so desperately want it to be true. History tells us another story.

[Chisox08]

27. What good will come out of bombing Syria?

We will create more terrorist. We will be possibly aiding Al Qaeda, yeah that Al Qaeda. Making already sketchy relations with Russia and China worst. If we really cared about the people of Syria we would be dropping food and medicine instead of bombs.

[Abukhatar]

44. geo political signals of not bombing syria

While I am not too enthused about bombing Syria, we have to think of the the signals we send and the conclusions our enemies might get: Syria gets tacit approval to use those weapons, rebels see that the west will not act, maybe discourage them resulting in increased iraniang influence. A potential motive to attack under guise of the use of gas is to weaken Syria enough so that the civil war is prolonged and keeps Iran busy, delaying the formation of a greater shia sphere of influence. Booting out the Assad regime does not help us much in light of the rebels affiliations.

[DJ13]

77. think of the the signals we send ...... Syria gets tacit approval to use those weapons

The best signal then would be a united coalition of super powers and regional powers sending a message, it shouldnt be up to the US alone (or with a small coalition).

A UN force in other words.

[7962]

95. Thats the problem; usually NOBODY else in the world wants to help stop this type stuff

As soon as something terrible happens or a dictator goes nuts, the whole world expects the US to come to the rescue. The rest of the time, they hate us.
The UN is powerless without us or our few dependable allies (England, Canada, Australia).

[rhett o rick]

62. I will agree that bombing one side might make a difference. Problem is, will the difference make

things better? I doubt it very seriously. It's very simplistic thinking to think that if we send 150 missiles into Syria that it will make things better.

What goal are you trying to achieve? Make Assad feel bad so he wont do it again?

[longship]

3. I am with you on this one, WilliamPitt.

I always like to read your posts. Even the rare times I disagree, I value your take on these often complex issues.

My take on many issues is that they are rarely strict dichotomies. But this time I think you've nailed the issue. It is exactly as you present it here. (Although I would argue that this civil war undoubtedly has more than two sides.)

But the US getting involved may likely assist one or another of the players. (I take a more nuanced approach... ) my position is that getting involved would likely involve the US in what will inevitably and quickly become a clusterfuck.

The only way to win on this is to not get involved.

R&K

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Wrong.

1) It's Jesus H. Jumping Christ.

2) If they can get involved (bombs away!) then they will...regardless what the will of the people is

[trumad]

7. No---It's Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch...

[WilliamPitt]

10. . . . . . . . . .

[trumad]

11. There ya go...

Now--- back to the Deadspin article on why the Pat's suck.

[Thor_MN]

34. Depending on the surroundings, I'll use William H. Macy

With all due apologies to the man. Although my nephews are now old enough that I can use the full prescription strength version.

[valerief]

63. I like to say, "Sammy Davis Junior!" nt

[progressoid]

67. Jesus in a sidecar?

[Maynar]

69. o:23 seconds

[Ellipsis]

75. touchdown...

[concreteblue]

89. or, from one of the more brassy ladies I know:

"Jeesus titty - fukin christ!"

[TorchTheWitch]

71. wrong again

It's
1) Jesus H. Barking Christ, or Jesus H. Barking Christ on a cracker (not to be confused with Jesus H. Christ on a trailer hitch... that's for some other issue entirely)
2) This part's right

[trumad]

5. I heard today

that when there is any military involvement---IE: bombs dropping, there is a clause that allows no bid contracts.

I'm researching it to see how that works... but...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Wow. If that is true then the pigs will be pushing to get to the trough PDQ.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Then there's the little matter of CIA training camps in Jordan ...

and weapons to the rebels. But hey it's not Vietnam err Iraq or something.

[CreekDog]

12. We aren't taking sides!

we think we'll bomb one side's stuff.

but we'll end up hitting the other side's people.

so it's all good.

they're even, see?

[avaistheone1]

18. LOL

Some times gallows humor is all we have got.

Very good.

[Scootaloo]

55. Ouch, it hurts to laugh at that. n/t

[Supersedeas]

79. something like that

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. Can you fucking believe we are witnessing this???

I am having very ugly flashbacks.

[Duval]

14. AMEN! n/t

[Half-Century Man]

15. What about a doomsday contract?

All political participants and military officers involved, agree to forfeit their careers and retirement benefits if military strikes cause the Syrian Civil War to expand beyond the borders of Syria.
They agree to forever abandon all roles in government and any company or organization with contacts in the government.

[woo me with science]

16. The theater is fucking insulting.

Just stand up there, give us all the finger, and say you are doing whatever the hell you want, no matter what we say. The spin is just fucking insulting at this point.

[Hydra]

35. I feel like they're doing that too

Just with a "and please be stupid enough to just go with it, k?"

[bluesbassman]

45. Ya know, at least when Bush the Lesser and his gang did it...

we knew they thought everybody was stupid. To have our own party pull this shit is just fucking insulting.

[Eddie Haskell]

50. I'd say the finger is pretty obvious.

[valerief]

17. Baldheaded?

[avaistheone1]

20. Baldheaded?

All the images I have seen of Jesus, he always has had hair!

[valerief]

21. I guess the marines have gotten hold of him!

[bvar22]

22. Aww, Will.

You fucking "Purists" are all alike,
always spoiling the fun with your "ideals" and "values".

Can't we go kill just a few thousand in a "limited" WAR?
The Republicans want to kill them all.
Obama & Kerry just want to compromise,
and Meet them Half Way.

You never loved him.

[ctsnowman]

83. "You never loved him."

[maddiemom]

23. We should have caught on, at least, by Bush vs Gore: our "representative

Democracy" has become a huge joke. The will of the people doesn't matter in the least. The only thing important to our president and (most of) our congress is what their big money paymasters want. Fat chance we'll ever get that big money out of politics. More and more citizens need to be questioning why there is always money for war, but not for our own benefit. As one blogger pointed out, why is their money to rebuild Iraq (not that we don't owe them), while Detroit dies? How did we get here since the sainted Reagan? Please: Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson and their small group of congressional compadres: stay off small planes!

[maddiemom]

24. Sorry: THERE money.

[Maynar]

70. No, you had it right the first time.

[tazkcmo]

56. I thought we lived in a Republic?

Man, I gotta start watching TV again. I'm missing everything. First all the Nanny Boo Boo shit (still don't know what that is) and now this!

[7962]

96. It's Honey Boo Boo and no, you do NOT want to watch it!

Your eyes will hate you. And the brood lives about 30 miles from me.

[Dustlawyer]

68. Righteous rant! Amen.

[warrant46]

80. stay off small planes

A mistake that Paul Wellstone made

[marble falls]

25. No, Will, dammit you're looking at it all wrong: the Government just wants to express the people's..

wishes by equalizing the odds a little bit. If that seems favor one side or another its all in how you look at it. After all McCain, Lieberman, and Graham agree, its bipartisan!!!!

What possibly could go wrong?

[obxhead]

26. Thank you nt

[KittyWampus]

28. I thought we were already involved sending arms to the rebels since June.

But I may be wrong.

[Poll_Blind]

29. +1

PB

[roamer65]

30. The whole ME is a powderkeg right now.

This just may set off a regional war or WW3.

We really need to stay out of this mess.

[AverageJoe90]

76. No WWIII, but a regional war can't be ruled out.....

And unfortunately, in the worst case scenario, the death toll could possibly approach that of WWI. You wouldn't need WWIII for that, as unlikely as that is anyhow.

[markpkessinger]

84. The thing about world wars is . . .

. . . we sometimes don't see them coming.

[AverageJoe90]

100. Here's the problem with that, Mark:

While it is indeed true that many Americans might have thought this during the era just before World War I for a while, this wasn't the case in Europe for the most part. People *knew* something was going to happen eventually, given just how bad tensions had been getting for so many years(which would, btw, make our tussle over Syria look like a children's tea party), even many of those who tried to actively deny such, even if they didn't know the exact extent of what was to come.

And this is even LESS true for WWII: there were many who (rightly) feared, including here in the U.S., too, that the Nazis would start the next World War at some point from the very moment Hitler's little coup placed him & the other Nazis in total control of the country.

So, you are incorrect, to a degree, on both counts. About the only remotely possible way that WWIII *could* start without many people seeing it coming these days, that doesn't involve conspiracies or Hitlerian levels of sheer stupidity, might perhaps be a scenario that is similar to the one that was played out in the 1990 HBO blockbuster "By Dawn's Early Light"; in that movie, rogue Soviet hardliners launched a single warhead from a submarine off the coast of Turkey, and detonated it over Donetsk in what was then the Ukrainian S.S.R.: this kind of scenario, while not impossible, is extremely unlikely.

[PrestonLocke]

31. But, but, more bombs = more jobs!

[Eddie Haskell]

51. What we wrought we will receive a thousandfold.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. When you arm either side you are involved.

We are already in it.

[sulphurdunn]

33. This sort of betrayal

and in-your-face-fuck-you-you-idiots-will-eat-any-shit-we-dish up-because-you-love-Obama arrogance has made me appreciate how impotent the supporters of the Democratic Party have become.

[Hydra]

36. "Where else will you go?"

It's more or less a dare at this point.

[sulphurdunn]

39. That's a good question for which

I do not yet have a good answer and may never. It's sad really.

[Eddie Haskell]

53. Anywhere, nowhere, but I'll never vote Democrat again.

[Le Taz Hot]

88. I have an answer to that

but it's against DU rules to talk about it.

[BelgianMadCow]

37. nooooo it's just "degrade and deter", sounds peaceful enough?

The bit in the hearing where it was discussed how all that happy degrading might maybe possibly also influence the civil war, was kind of antithetical to 'not getting involved in the civil war'.

[chervilant]

40. And, STOP treating the citizens of this nation like we don't have

a functioning brain cell among us!

[Little Star]

52. .

[n2doc]

41. We are already involved

I posted a story earlier about the CIA sending in trained insurgents to fight Assad. The question is, how involved are we going to get? Drones and special forces, like Libya? "Trainers" like Iraq and Afghanistan? No Fly Zones? Or full on boots on the ground tank battalion assaults?

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. Obama Promises Syria Strike Will Have No Objective

August 29, 2013

Obama Promises Syria Strike Will Have No Objective

Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”


“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html

[Eddie Haskell]

54. We just get off heaping more shit on their heads.

[Enthusiast]

43. There is no justification for a military even a fraction of its current size.

Now that Afghanistan is winding down we simply must have another conflict. Otherwise all this excessive spending is just wasted. There you have it. Syria is no threat to the US or their allies.

[MrMickeysMom]

46. I wish this would stop, including my own critters, who I think have been bought off...

The WH and both my Senators and Rep don't get it yet...

That must reflect these "private meetings"....

Now, it looks like there is "0" transparency and I wonder how fast the Republicans can be bought off by this "Democratic" administration?

[Eddie Haskell]

47. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

When's the vote? Is anyone protesting?

[lunasun]

78. yes

http://www.fightbacknews.org/category/news-articles/antiwar-movement

vote coming 2014

How about you?

[paulrandfu]

57. Rumsfeld said today that Obama was the weakest president "in my adult lifetime,"

I guess we should take a war criminals words with a grain of salt.

[Hubert Flottz]

60. Rumsfeld belongs in prison in Iraq.

[warrant46]

81. That would be too good for that fascist

[lobodons]

58. Kosovo

100% air strikes no boots on ground

[eridani]

74. Yeah there were. The US military helped Croatia ethnically cleanse the Krajina of Serbs

Pretty much what the Serbs wanted to do to Albanians in Kosovo. Since the bombing had nothing to do with preventing ethnic cleansing, what was it for? According to John Pilger, blowing up factories owned by Serbs, while avoiding those owned by foreigners. Also, destroying bridges which were nowhere near the path from Serbia to Kosovo.

[LordGlenconner]

87. I'm pretty sure I heard that in the 90s

From a wingnut.

[eridani]

93. Pilger isn't a wingnut--only apologists for imperialism think so

Croatian ethnic cleansing of the Krajina is a well-documented fact.

[Hubert Flottz]

59. B careful, because I think that the phrase "Jesus H. baldheaded CHRIST" is

one of the key phrases that triggers the NSA computer screening team behind curtain numeral Uno.

It is written that, "Where there's smoke there's work." On whatever it is they write it on, in that five sided office complex that owns us.

So now, the Pentagon has the power to fling state propaganda at you and yours at will. They can highlight the causes in favor of drawing yet another hatchet from the war post. Tomahawk missiles cost the taxpayers $1.5 million when they first were deployed. Hard to tell now what one costs us? That doesn't count the cost of the naval vessels in the area ready to deliver the strike or strikes. Doesn't count the lives involved on every side in this mess. Doesn't count the contractors or the cost plus/no bid contracts. Don't count the probability that the USA will decline even further, in it's quest to be the model type of government, that is a beacon of freedom and liberty and a champion of human rights. We torture to get the answers abroad, if we don't get the answers we like. Anything goes when the military objective, the mission, is to sell us another war.

Why is it that we can afford more war anytime at all, but we can't fund our own civil government?

Edit...to add a link to the Bush/neocon legacy

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/20/ten_years_later_us_has_left

[valerief]

64. Because the very rich who own our country use the military budget as their petty cash. nt

[hootinholler]

61. There is the option of bombing both sides. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

65. Sock puppets/apologists: "We're not getting involved in the civil war."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Kinda like saying it's not rape if he just puts the tip in.

[DeSwiss]

72. I know, I know.....

...buck up their lil' feller. It's gonna be okay. The good thing about stupid civilizations is that they always solve the main problems they create by destroying themselves.

- So at least there's that to hang onto......

/irony

K&R

[wisteria]

73. You, do not understand the mission nor the strategy.

And, the purpose.

[Heather MC]

82. I once told a Doctor I was mildly pregnant. She corrected me.

Yeah when we do this, we will once again be fucking with something we should stay out of. If they don't attack us we shouldn't bother them. But our war machine needs a war.

[SwankyXomb]

86. If we're going in, I say we go all in.

If they're going to use their Weapons of Mass Destruction, I say we use ours, and glass the entire country. Even MOABs and cluster bombs aren't enough to get the MIC hard anymore, so we need to escalate. I mean, a weapon's no good unless you're willing to use it, right?

And why stop at Syria? Any other countries give us any lip, boom! North Korea? Ecuador? England, those tea-swilling, bad-teeth-having cowards? Boom!

shouldn't need to be added, but these days who knows?

[truebrit71]

91. Sorry Will, but you are wrong.

The "help" we are giving the one side is that their opposition can only be maimed and/or killed using conventional weapons...If the US was truly getting involved it would require overt support for one side or the other, and, more importantly, boots on the ground.

Assad has to be shown that he is not allowed to play with those toys. That is reserved for the Big Dogs.

[WilliamPitt]

92. "That is reserved for the Big Dogs."

Please tell me that was a fucking joke.

[truebrit71]

97. Of course it fucking was. I was using fucking irony...

...but there isn't a smilie thing for that....

[WilliamPitt]

98. The sarcasm tag is your friend.

I almost ate my keyboard when I saw that. Be aware that there's a DU version of Poe's Law at work around here lately. I've seen shit worse than that meant entirely in earnest. You never know anymore, sadly.

FYI: <----- it's not on the list, but colon + sarcasm + colon gets it done.

[felix_numinous]

94. The talking points are insulting

to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

I hate it when I feel manipulated by some bogus public relations of warmongering department run by steroid/stimulant cocktail addicted maniacs itching for a fix.

'Let's just start the bombing already!'

Someone needs to slap a harness on these people.

[liberal_at_heart]

99. K&R