350 children die from malnutrition every hour. Let's bomb Syria!

[MannyGoldstein]

According to the UN, 3.1 million children under 5 die each year from causes rooted in malnutrition. That's one Syria gas bombing every few hours.

The Syrian incident warrants great international discussions, Congressional hearings and likley the spending of billions of dollars for stuff that goes BOOM.

The starving kids? Not so much.

Why?

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. are you saying we don't do anything about that at all?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. It's not nearly the big deal that Syria is.

3.1 million each year. How 'bout we declare war on that?

[HardTimes99]

153. I'll settle for a War on Greed (and the greedy :) - nt

[Blanks]

160. Certainly we could use the same resources...

To drop food into areas where there isn't enough.

I'm for it.

[Scootaloo]

6. No, he's saying we could do MORE with the money we waste on throwing missiles at people

In fact, I would argue that since throwing missiles tends to make conditions worse for people in need, our eagerness to engage in such attacks directly diminishes whatever contributions we make to helping people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. we aren't planning on "throwing missiles at people" to my knowledge....

[Scootaloo]

10. Syriasly?

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. Unlike Assads chemicals

we plan on actual ]non-human targets....we intend to limit casualties as much as possible...Assad...not so much!

[Scootaloo]

15. Non-human targets?

That's a funny way to refer to Arabs.

Not at all surprising considering the source, I suppose.

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. I refer to Syrian fighter planes...etc..as targets...

what the hell are you talking about?

[Scootaloo]

23. I'm talking about a sustained barrage of missile strikes against Syria

With the goal - asked by the Senate - of regime change. I'm speaking of the dozens of posters like yourself calling to "bomb them into the stone age" and "kill them all."

We will be targeting people. Regardless of our "intent" - intent is fucking meaningless, it's an out for weaselly scumbags and corpse-fuckers who love war and hate peace to claim that all the dead civilians are excusable, are collateral, don't matter, look at the school we'll have built in twelve years.

Explosions don't discriminate, and the united States has a storied history of blowing up innocent people and then saying "well they looked like the bad guy, so we're still cool!" as we're doing in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as we speak, as we were doing in Iraq under both Bushes and Clinton (though to be fair Clinton mostly starved and diseased them to death, nice guy that Clinton) as we were doing with our support of death squads in Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Colombia under Reagan, as we did with Carter's assistance to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, all the fucking way back to our nation's roots.

You can pretend that we won't kill anyone, and that everyone we kill is inherently a "bad guy" all you want. Dismiss them as non-human targets. All you're doing is exposing yourself as the actual nonhuman in this discourse.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. You have NEVER heard me use the phrase "bomb them back to the stone age"

You read that at Free Republic not Democratic Underground...

And I ask yet again...if one life is lost...but Assad loses his ability to use weapons in the future against other children....

You still wouldn't be down....cause they are Syrians right?

[Scootaloo]

26. No, but I did just get done speaking with a 35k+ poster who advocated exactly that

So far as I can figure, it's exactly what you're advocating, but congratulations on being more diplomatic about it.

And you can reframe all you want. You're the one who dismissed Syrians as non-humans, chief.

What's the likelihood of just one life being lost? Gimme a ballpark probability figure on that, please. Be sure to figure in the aftermath of the strikes as well as the strikes themselves, since military operations don't happen in a vacuum.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. No I didn't "cheif"

You might want to peep this article from the Beeb..

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

[Scootaloo]

30. While that's interesting (and IMO, unlikely)

We don't have these weapons.
we'll be using tomahawks and other cruise missiles.
They will not be targeting the chemical weapons
because we can't secure them
and strikes would make them LESS secure
To say nothing of the hazards of blowing them up

I'm almost certain I've explained this to you a half-dozen times, so I'm rather certain you've transcended ignorance and moved on to something else entirely.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. the operative phrase "IMO"

your opinion means diddly squat about that...as I have pointed out in the past, the U.S. govt has been working on weapons that neutralize chemical weapons for over a decade. My opinion considering all the other technological advances in the last ten years is....

Don't underestimate American ingenuity and this President.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

38. Of the dollar the entire world spends for the military,

the US spends 42 cents of it.

getting your money's worth?

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. actually its more than that....

but good try dude...epic fail

[Scootaloo]

39. Oh, I don't doubt the "incinerating chemical weapons" part

It's the "without risk to human populations" part I find unlikely.

See, a weapon like this would have to deliver an instant output of an immense amount of energy in order to not only burn away all the metal and ceramics of the weapons but also to break down the chemicals or kill the germs. I'm not sure how hot that would have to be, but in order to do it so quickly, I imagine it's measured on the kelvin scale. Now, when you release energy like that, it creates an explosion. The more energy released, the bigger the explosion. And as i said, we're looking at a LOT of energy.

Point of fact we already have weapons that could incinerate chemical stockpiles in this manner. We don't use them, for the exact reason that their explosions are fucking big and an enormous danger to people nearby - we call them "nukes." Mind, such a weapon doesn't have to be nuclear, it's just that fission / fusion are the most compact ways to deliver this kind of energy.

And the laws of physics being about the only laws that the United States military can't find a way to break, any weapon that can release energy on this scale will always have an explosion of that size. ALWAYS.

But, go ahead and call me a "fan of Assad" or accuse me of "hating the DEMOCRATIC president!!!" or whatever you've got, because I know how a fucking explosion works.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. But of course

Yes I am sure you know waaaaaay more than the scientists who have been working on such methods for over a decade in secret too...

[Scootaloo]

63. It's not a question of knowing more, it's a question of knowing enough

And I know enough to understand that a huge release of energy would be necessary for this effect. I also know enough to understand that such a huge release of energy in the form of heat is going to create a big explosion. This is simple thermodynamics and motion, energy being converted into heat and force (work). There's no way around this, and if you can prove otherwise, well, good luck with your perpetual motion machine patent.

Scientists have been researching it for over a decade? Good for them, grants are hard to come by in the field of applied physics, and it's nice that they're getting a paycheck because someone in Washington thinks physicists are wizards.

I like how you add on the "in secret" part as if you too believe they have sorcerous powers beyond the ken of mortal men.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Apparently you DIDN"T know about that till I showed you..

oh and as far as secrecy goes...

the Stealth technology was top secret for some time...

There are lots of secret technology going on by the govt.....you have a problem with that?


Besides...I backed up my claim with an actual article...

You can deny that the U.S. is innovative all you want...but you would still be wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

[Scootaloo]

73. Really, are you having this much difficulty understanding the principles of physics?

You know, the universally consistent rules that define physical existence, these scientific concepts that, if we were to ever meet another intelligent species, we would both understand as a common foundation of our reality?

I mean these are complex concepts, but they're not especially difficult, since... well, every moment of our lives requires their application, you know? The three laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of Motion, Einstein's theory of relativity, these things explain the relationships between matter and energy that make up the whole of the universe.

Cut the bullshit about "U.S. innovation" you can't innovate your way out of the foundational constants of the universe.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. YOU are the one that is denying the science...

are you still using rotary telephones too?

[Scootaloo]

81. That's rich

Really? So you're arguing that the basic laws of thermodynamics and motion can be superseded, by "U.S. Innovation," dependent on who is president at the time... and someone who tells you nope, they can't be... is denying science.

I'm sorry, but you're just factually wrong on this. And you're not just wrong, you're being a grade-A fool.

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. Yea it is isn't it? Who is denying science and thermodynamics?

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

In 2002, the Navy announced that it was developing the weapon and pairing it with bombs designed to penetrate fortified buildings. The Navy described it working this way: after bursting into a storage bunker, the warhead would spray copper plates at high speeds to tear into tanks containing toxic chemicals. Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/

[Scootaloo]

121. Go back. Read my posts

then come back. Read this line:

Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant.

I've been telling you for several posts that this weapon will result in an explosion. The flying copper plates thing is new, okay... but there's still going to be a big explosion. Big explosions are fucking dangerous, it's why we use them to kill people. And as a byproduct of this, the bomb releases chlorine gas?

Since I just spent like ten posts explaining how explosions work to you, I'm going to let someone else tackle the issue of what effects chlorine gas has...

Point remains; big explosions kill people. Big bombs make big explosions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. No you read my newest!

“The U.S. Air Force has Agent Defeat Weapons designed to limit collateral damage and effects,” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told Military​.com. “The munitions are PAW (Passive Attack Weapon) and Crash Pad.”
Both of these weapons would be carried by aircraft such as the F-15 or F-22 fighter jets and B-2 or B-1 bombers. It’s likely the Air Force would deploy the weapons from a B-2 or F-22 to take advantage of their radar-evading stealth technology considering the advanced air defense systems in Syria.


http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

sucks to be on the wrong side of science doesn't it?

[Scootaloo]

127. As i said, I don't doubt their incendiary capabilities

it's the "designed to limit collateral damage" thing i have severe doubts about.

Remember - same military that can't tell a wedding


from a terrorist training camp

[marew]

128. Excellent words, friend, excellent words.

Thank you for your accurate and thoughtful posts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. Same Military...with a CiC that didn't give a shit about collateral damage...

remember they didn't even want a body count!

[Maedhros]

159. Ummm...chlorine gas is not just a "disinfectant"

It is a highly toxic substance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine

Chlorine gas was first introduced as a weapon on April 22, 1915, at Ypres by the German Army,[38][39] and the results of this weapon were disastrous because gas masks had not been mass distributed and were tricky to get on quickly.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. As a matter of fact...here is another article...this time from USA today:

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has spent more than a decade trying to develop weapons to neutralize chemical weapons, the threat that has the United States poised to launch a missile strike on Syria, according to military planning documents and officials.

The weapons, which would be attached to a bomb dropped from an aircraft, are supposed to neutralize chemical weapons where they are produced or stored.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/

[Dragonfli]

41. I spent a couple of hours discussing this with VR last night, the poster

appears to actually believe this fantasy and WILL NOT LET IT GO no matter what you post in reply. Insisting that just because the goal as stated thus far is to "engage in limited PUNITIVE strikes" and were specifically stated as not intended to be aimed at the chemicals themselves (due to the obvious and very serious dangers of dispersal and an inability to secure chemicals not destroyed or dispersed) that such talk was merely speculation and believes (for an undisclosed reason) that the bombing will very likely be directed towards "neutralizing" chemical weapons and thus saving future children from death by gas at the hands of the Syrian government.

It is a rather nice fantasy, I understand the urge for one to convince oneself that such are the goals of this administration, but pure fantasy, perhaps a belief system built as a way to ease VR's conscious for supporting what is essentially in truth the clearly stated goal of sending bombs that will kill more Syrians and rescue no one as "punishment" and as a bizarre means of communication. or as Obama puts it "sending a message" (apparently a message that will be received by a Shaman of some sort well versed in the art of reading chicken and/or human entrails as well as random explosive debris for the hidden language that can be gleaned and translated by such mystics)

A less bizarre and death ridden message could be sent in a more conventional way using a written language in the form of a letter delivered via diplomatic courier, also an attempt to curtail killing by killing even more people (hardly likely to include any guilty parties except perhaps by coincidence) is ludicrous, cruel, and doomed to fail, but this last bit is I suppose just my opinion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. You don't have to believe...I just gave an article from the BBS to back up my claim...

here you go...for your edification too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

[Dragonfli]

67. as I told you before, lovely dream where weapons are destroyed and no one killed,

Just not what the Administrations stated goals are. Obama is sending a punitive "message", he has told you so himself. His Administration has even qualified certain aspects of the intended action, relaying that they expect to use "limited" strikes, with no "boots on the ground " and with no intention to attempt "regime change".

The rest is a lovely daydream that perhaps you should try to convince Obama is a better course rather than yourself and people like me.

I don't necessarily think it's a good idea myself now that I have learned that the intense heat required would be on the order of power and destruction as to be in a class with nuclear weaponry. I don't even endorse burning thousands of civilians with white phosphorous as our country likes to do from time to time, let alone release mega-incendiary devises (experimental ones at that) that burn as hot as fucking nukes! I fear destroying entire towns and cities of people buy igniting a chemical plant nearby using this new class of "heat nuke" may end up with the largest tally of innocent death of all the potential options.

Burning a country to save a village of already dead people is not likely being considered by the Administration possibly for a very good reason. Perhaps Obama thinks killing and shedding more blood will somehow protect the already dead but he may not be a complete lunatic after all using such incredibly dangerous mega-weapons for his punitive policing endeavors.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. oh so now we cannot do anything....if even one person might die...

So no manned mission to Mars dammit....cause someone might die!

No one is talking about burning a country to save a village are they?

No one has talked about a "shock and awe" type carpet bombing...

You seem to be worried that even one person could die....and then extrapolate that to the U.S. will kill most people in Syria in your "burn a country to save a village" analogy...Epic Fail.

[Dragonfli]

79. Many will die, it's what military actions do, kill people.

It is simply a fact of life, you labor under the impression that killing more Syrians is somehow the correct response to the killing of Syrians. You live in a fantasy world. Bombs do not resurrect the dead, they simply make the dead less lonely by adding company. You hawks and your blood soaked "messages" make no sense at all.

How will bombing people save lives rather than end them? At least admit these strikes are about vengeance, money (mostly this), waving "the big dick" around and a misguided belief that punishment by bombing more of his citizens to death will somehow "reform" or "teach" an immoral man that killing is bad, it will not, he will not have any epiphanies just because we kill more Syrians in an act of punitive revenge.

Should you ever be unfaithful in marriage don't use Obama logic and try to fuck for fidelity. Fucking more people will not reverse the act of fucking some earlier.

I will admit tho that "Fucking for Fidelity" would make a neat bumper sticker.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. Assad...overall goal to attempt to kill hundreds if not thousands...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[Dragonfli]

143. killing hundreds if not thousands more will not change his mind, it will escalate to more killing

AQ is not the friend of the innocents caught in the middle of this power struggle to see which evil thug gets to rule and kill Syrian people. Blowing shit up for AQ, training and arming more Al Quieda terrorist "freedom fighters" like the 50 we just sent off will not end the bloodshed, it will increase death exponentially and those that will suffer the most by our backing AQ over the other Terrorist (currently in charge) will be the common people caught in the crossfire as they walk with their children, go to the market, or try to get to a job to support their families; it is always that way with military conflict, the people suffer the most and you would escalate their troubles to "help" them? Many will not survive such "help".

[bvar22]

154. the goal is not to convince anyone of anything.

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

[Dragonfli]

163. Clearly, but you would think they would do their work without appearing so silly and stupid....

[bvar22]

165. Appearing silly and stupid doesn't matter anymore.

Silly & Stupid is the New Normal.

Both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were willing to appear silly and stupid (and worse) the last few days pimping this new extracurricular War of theirs.
That didn't stop them.

They have to know that the World is thinking they are nothing but Sell Outs today.
No Bubble is THAT thick.

[font size=4]
World to Obama:
"We said PEACE,
not PEAS!"
[/font]

[rhett o rick]

138. I always equated "Pro War" with the conservatives. I would hope Democrats would

have more sense than to start bombing to punish.

The 200 million would be better spent feeding children, dont you agree?

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. How about bombing to eliminate chemical weapons...

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[questionseverything]

147. syrian rebels bombing to eliminate

Christians//////////////////////////////////////////

Al-Qaida-linked rebels launched an assault Wednesday on a regime-held Christian village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus — part of a brutal battle of attrition each side believes it can win despite more than two years of deadlock.

As the world focused on possible U.S. military action against Syria, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel in the village of Maaloula and shelled the community below, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The attack came hours before a Senate panel voted to give President Barack Obama authority to use military force against Syria — the first time lawmakers have voted to allow military action since the October 2002 votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-09-04/french-parliament-to-debate-syria-strikes

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. They are in a Civil War...it says "regime held"

I don't care one whit about their respective religions!

[rhett o rick]

150. Sure trust us this time Charlie Brown. We are only going to use bombs for goodness. nm

[Scuba]

152. Stop that sanity, you'll confuse several of the others on this thread!

My red line ...

[RC]

164. It still is.

I always equated "Pro War" with the conservatives.

Although there are those here that would have you think that Democrats do too.

But they are the DLC, New Democrats, DINO's and others that are now really the Left-wing of the Republican Party, that have taken advantage of the Democratic Party moving far enough to the Right to envelop them. Many think they are Democrats now because they voted for that "Far-Left-wing, Liberal", Obama the second time around.

[beerandjesus]

145. Hahahaha, AWESOME come-back!

[MNBrewer]

22. 1. you are ignorant of the targets

2.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. Um no I am not...

Please show me where Obama has decided to indiscriminately bomb Syria...

This is DemocraticUnderground...not PacifistUnderground

[polly7]

32. Well I hope they're a bit more discriminate than they were in Libya.

But back then I heard the exact same thing ..... "show me where NATO is indiscriminately bombing anyone".

But the shine was, from the start, an illusion, as Maximilian Forte proves in his important new book, Slouching Towards Sirte. Forte thoroughly chronicles NATO’s bombing of Libya and the crimes against humanity for which NATO is responsible. The author takes us on a tour of Sirte after it had been subject to intense NATO bombardment by chronicling journalists’ impressions of the city in October 2011. Reporters observed, “Nothing could survive in here for very long,” that the city was “reduced to rubble, a ghost town filled with the stench of death and where bodies litter the streets,” that it was a place “almost without an intact building,” whose infrastructure “simply ceased to exist,” and resembled “Ypres in 1915, or Grozny in 1995,” or postwar “Leningrad, Gaza or Beirut.”

Forte describes numerous NATO operations which, he argues, rose to the level of war crimes. For example, he discusses a NATO strike on a farming compound in the town of Majer on 8 August 2011. A Human Rights Watch investigation concluded that NATO fired on the compound twice, the second time killing 34 civilians who had come to look for survivors —a tactic familiar to those who follow US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen—and found no evidence that the target had been used for military purposes. In its examination of five sites where NATO caused civilian casualties, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) found that at four of those sites NATO’s characterization of the targets as “‘command and control nodes’ or ‘troop staging areas’ was not reflected in evidence at the scene and witness testimony.” In view of these and other killings of civilians by NATO, Palestinian lawyer Raji Sourani remarks that the Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya of which he was a part has “reason to think that there were some war crimes perpetrated” by NATO. Through this method, Forte shows the fundamental contradiction of humanitarian wars: they kill people to ensure that people are not killed.

- See more at: http://jacobinmag.com/2013/09/libya-and-its-contexts/#sthash.csru0XyE.V2XT4Rru.dpuf

You can fool yourself when you state dropping bombs won't maim and kill civilians but I doubt you'll find many here that will fall for it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. Oh really....

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.[/blockquote

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

10+ yrs of working on neutralizing chemical weapons...you think there were no advances?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

40. And the people living next to them?

Oh wait, I forgot, it.s precision bombing.

"and we know where they all are", hmm, now who said that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. All efforts will be made to minimize that impact...

but if even one dies in the effort to eliminate chemical weapons at Assad's disposal is not worth that by your analogy. There is a war going on there and people ARE dying...1500 in just that one attack. If the US does nothing...what do you think are the chances that Assad never uses them again?

[totodeinhere]

85. Why does it have to be we who do something? Are we the world's policeman?

I don't know about you but I am sick of it. We have been in enough wars lately. Now it's someone else's turn. Spend those millions of not billions of dollars on something here at home.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. because we are the only ones with the technology to neutralize chemical weapons.

[polly7]

92. lmao. What a pile of crap. nt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. Oh really?

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

[totodeinhere]

118. Yup. They've been shoveling a lot of it lately haven't they. n/t

[totodeinhere]

114. But taking out their chemical weapons will require boots on the ground.

Study: To destroy Syria chemical weapons, “boots on the ground” needed

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/04/study_to_destroy_syria_chemical_weapons_boots_on_the_ground_needed/

But both Kerry and Obama have promised that there will be no boots on the ground. So even if we are the only ones with the technology to neutralize chemical weapons, which I doubt, it won't make any difference because we won't be doing that anyway.

The so-called limited attack that Obama is proposing is something that any number of other countries including countries in that region have the capability to pull off. Let them do it. We need to sit this one out and spend that money on something else.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. uh actually no it wont...

In 2002, the Navy announced that it was developing the weapon and pairing it with bombs designed to penetrate fortified buildings. The Navy described it working this way: after bursting into a storage bunker, the warhead would spray copper plates at high speeds to tear into tanks containing toxic chemicals. Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/

'Intense heat'
For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

[totodeinhere]

117. Since you ignored my previous link here are some more.

The U.S. Defense Department has informed the White House it could take more than 75,000 military personnel to secure Syria's chemical arsenal, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/securing-syrian-chemical-sites-may-require-75000-troops-us-military/

The proposed U.S. air strikes would reportedly leave much of Assad's deadly stockpile relatively unharmed

http://theweek.com/article/index/249131/syrias-chemical-weapons-would-it-take-boots-on-the-ground-to-destroy-them

An attempt by the United States to seize Syria’s deadly stockpile would be a difficult and dangerous undertaking.

Any successful move to secure the stockpile would likely involve thousands of U.S. troops and a significant commitment of air power to handle numerous tactical challenges. In addition to the risk of potential U.S. casualties at some well-defended sites, the cost for such an operation could easily run into the billions of dollars. There is also the inherent danger of setting off the chemical weapons during an operation—or prompting a desperate Assad regime to actually use its chemical weapons as a trump card.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2013/07/seizing-chemical-weapons-syria-really-hard-do/67454/

It is clear that boots on the ground would be needed, and a lot of boots, to take out his chemical weapons.

"So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders." Note that is says probably. This is mere speculation. The overwhelming consensus is that boots on the ground would be necessary. Are you really ready to see more US boots on the ground and the US getting involved in another quagmire in the Middle East costing us billions of dollars and thousands of America lives?

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. How the hell would THEY know about all the secret technology we have...

perhaps it is you who is ignoring the obvious...

They have been working on them for over 10 yrs! I'd say they probably have a few tricks up their sleeve...

[totodeinhere]

130. Let me turn that question around. How the hell do you know?

Whom am I going to believe. The numerous sources I have quoted, or you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. because I read...alot

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. I'll see your Defense one link...and raise that with one of my own

“The U.S. Air Force has Agent Defeat Weapons designed to limit collateral damage and effects,” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told Military​.com. “The munitions are PAW (Passive Attack Weapon) and Crash Pad.”
Both of these weapons would be carried by aircraft such as the F-15 or F-22 fighter jets and B-2 or B-1 bombers. It’s likely the Air Force would deploy the weapons from a B-2 or F-22 to take advantage of their radar-evading stealth technology considering the advanced air defense systems in Syria.


http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[totodeinhere]

135. That would be quite an operation if they attempted to pull it off. Note that the quote specifies

"limit" not eliminate collateral damage so I suspect that there would be an impact on civilians even under that scenario. (By the way I hate the term "collateral damage." Damn it, it's innocent civilians including children, NOT collateral damage.)

The president has indicated that he is planning a limited shot across the bow to punish Assad. The operation that you are describing would be outside of that scope. At no time has the president or anyone else indicated any intention to try to take out Assad's chemical weapons. So we keep getting back to my original point. What military actions are being planned could be carried out by any number of other countries.

[MNBrewer]

33. List the targets, since you know them!

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Here is a nice article from the Beeb on it..

I suggest you read it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

It has a purty map and everything!

[Cryptoad]

75. yea

im sure the US Command told teh BBC what their target are....... LMaO

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. Of course they didn't if you happen to read...you will see that much is available through sat images

so Yeah...

[Cryptoad]

80. There are satilite

pics of most the world.... that has nothing to do with the knowledge of targets.......geeez

[totodeinhere]

64. Assad has been moving military assets to civilian areas. It won't be possible to hit his military

without killing innocent civilians. In spite of what anyone might say, there always are civilian casualties in war.

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. Oh really

[totodeinhere]

84. Syria dismisses US decision to hold off on strikes, moves troops and weapons to civilian areas

http://o.canada.com/2013/09/01/syria-dismisses-us-decision-to-hold-off-on-strikes-moves-troops-and-weapons-to-civilian-areas/

[NM_Birder]

142. "we plan on actual non human targets".........and the day after ?.... then what ?

So what is your rationalization when real life civilian people are killed with our intended limited casualty missile strikes ?

How bout............"fuck em, ...we needed to send a message to the Assad regime,..... the civilians we kill are acceptable losses because of our intention to teach Assad a lesson,..... about the inhuman act of killing civilians".

Missile strikes are going to kill civilians, you know that, just as well as John frickin Kerry, justifying military action because of a desire to serve a political party, and the idea that it will effect future elections is wrong.

[Maedhros]

158. I've posted this on other threads, but it looks like it needs to go here as well.

The plan to bomb "non human targets" to "limit casualties" is a farce even the Pentagon doesn't believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/middleeast/us-syria-intervention-would-be-risky-pentagon-officials-say.html?pagewanted=all

Although the United States has the military capability to launch sustained airstrikes in Syria — “We can do anything,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, told the Senate last week — defense officials say they are concerned about four tough challenges: the risks in attacking Syria’s plentiful and sophisticated Russian-made air defenses, which are located close to major population centers; arming a deeply splintered Syrian opposition; the potential for starting a proxy war with Iran or Russia, two crucial allies of Syria; and the lack, at least so far, of an international coalition willing to take action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.


Defense and intelligence officials say that Syria’s integrated air defenses — a combination of thousands of surface-to-air missiles, radars and antiaircraft guns — are not only more advanced than those in Libya, they are also arrayed in densely populated areas on the country’s western border, meaning that even with precision bombing, civilians nearby would probably be killed.

“There would be some severe collateral damage going after those areas,” Mr. Panetta said last week.

So this fantasy you are creating in your own mind that involves magical missile strikes that hit only military targets is just that: a fantasy.

If we go into Syria, we are going to hurt people. A lot of people, large numbers of whom have done nothing to deserve what's coming.

[heaven05]

50. with all the 'syria gas attack'

discussion going on, how did you miss the one about missiles? You're just joking right?

[rhett o rick]

136. Then I would dare say your knowledge is lacking.

Here's where I stand.

Why should we be the almighty decider in this conflict?

Why are we ignoring the UN isn’t that conservative behavior?

We have no business judging the Syrian government's human rights after what we did in Iraq and Vietnam.

I firmly believe our interference will not help and, based on historical evidence, will make things worse.

We cant afford to be the world's police force. What part of WE CANT AFFORD, doesn’t the Admin understand?

What safety net will we be asked to sacrifice for this war? SS or Medicare?

Where do you stand?

[orpupilofnature57]

126. +1000 !!!!

[rhett o rick]

134. Are you saying that we are? nm

[Renew Deal]

2. Are you one of those that feels that feeding kids is "playing God?"

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I think it's "playing decent human being" nt

[PDJane]

7. Well, see, feeding starving children will not line the pockets of the banks and contractors.

If you want a short answer, you have it.

[JI7]

9. we do give a lot in humanitarian aid , but the problem is often the politics

of individual nations and corruption and just getting food to the people.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. So why don't we blow *those* people to smithereens?

The ones who prevent food distribution.

Is stavation less abhorrent than gas?

[JI7]

13. because it's not because they are trying to starve people to death

it's kind of like the health care industry in the US and how profit can get in the way of everyone getting quality health care.

the chemical attacks were meant to terrorize and kill people.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Assad doesn't want to kill people

He just orders his generals to keep him in power.

[JI7]

21. would you compare republicans denying Sandy aid

to being the same as attacking them with chemicals ?

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Idunno.

How many people died from aid being denied to Sandy victims?

[ProSense]

27. You know Assad personally?

"Assad doesn't want to kill people"

Isn't that playing apologist for him?

[MannyGoldstein]

55. It's interesting

that you don't accuse JI7 of being an apologist for those who actively starve others to death.

But since you ask... I'm not being an apologist for anyone. As I've said before - and you know this - Assad should pay dearly for his crimes.

[JI7]

57. who is starving someone to death ?

[MannyGoldstein]

88. Your argument was the same as mine

That the deaths were secondary to a primary purpose - making money, in your argument, and maintaining power in mine.

[JI7]

89. that's a strange comparison

makes me wonder

[MannyGoldstein]

90. Wonder about what?

(I sense that I'm about to be accused of something heinous...)

[Dragonfli]

99. Are you now or have you ever been a Hyena?

Well punk are you?
Is that what you are hiding?
hmmmm...

[MannyGoldstein]

101. Oh, man

You've got the brass knuckles on tonight!

[Dragonfli]

104. That was yesterday

Today I have brought out my "message sender"



I find this beauty is best suited for my humanitarian "messages" which are in vogue at the momment.

Got a problem with that?

[MannyGoldstein]

107. Day-um

Crossing *your* red line would suck all over.



At least you'll save a lot of lives.

[PDJane]

16. Truthfully, the US spends less that 1% of the GDP on humanitarian aid.

And what aid is given is tied to US production of things like food, but also shipping, arms, American ngo's. If the US didn't give that amount, the balance of trade would be much worse.

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. No, we really don't. What we mostly do is label corporate welfare humanitarian aid.

Just another revenue stream from the taxpayer to the corporate welfare queens.

[William769]

14. Why not feed the children and bomb Syria?

Two birds one stone.

[Dragonfli]

87. What, you mean like feed the children with the bodies of our dead bombing victims?

I suppose it would depend on how many of our our DU and or white phosphorous "spices" we use while creating our corpses prior to feeding them to the children.

I suppose some of our victims will be "spice" free and delicious....

(*disclaimer... US chemical weapons are not chemicals or weapons and as such there use is wholesome unlike chemicals used by others, hence the word substitute "spices&quot

[ProSense]

20. Feed The Future

Feed The Future
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/

Nearly one billion people endure the misery of chronic hunger, approximately one-sixth of the world’s population. Responding to the underlying causes of global hunger and food insecurity, at the London G20 Summit in 2009, President Obama announced a global food security initiative that has the support of the world’s major and emerging donor nations, includes strong roles for our multilateral institutions, and is led by partner countries that are ready and willing to develop comprehensive plans and commit their own resources to agricultural and market development.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Food_Security_Fact_Sheet.pdf

These initiatives rarely get much attention. Also, aid to Syrian refugees.

Obama announces extra $300 million in aid for Syrians, refugees
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19018208-obama-announces-extra-300-million-in-aid-for-syrians-refugees?lite

Touring Refugee Camp, Kerry Sees Mounting Syrian Suffering
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/middleeast/touring-refugee-camp-kerry-sees-mounting-syrian-suffering.html

[WillyT]

28. There Is No Profit In Feeding The Starving... Bombing The Innocent... Oh, Yeah...

& Rec !!!

[DirkGently]

34. 10 million Americans per year can't pay their medical bills.

And yet we do nothing.

Part of the attraction here -- at least to those with no ulterior motive -- is the fantasy of a simple solution to a huge problem.

We can't fix Syria by killing some Syrians, but we have all these zowie missiles just lying around, and it would be nice to think that because we have those, we have that kind of world-improving power.

We don't.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

[amerikat]

60. .

[Cryptoad]

42. Does Justice not apply to Assad????????? nt

[polly7]

44. This has nothing to do with justice for anyone. nt.

[Cryptoad]

78. Very interesting

Justice for nobody,,,,, the new world order?

[Dragonfli]

47. Obama is not a judge, and certainly not a "judge Dredd" figure responsible as jury and executioner

in addition to such judicial responsibilities "all rolled into one" like some international Judge Dredd character.

Why do you believe it is somehow our mission to not only be the SELF APPOINTED world police, but in effect the self appointed world "Judge Dredd"?

[Cryptoad]

76. you still didn't address the Question nt

[Dragonfli]

82. I most certainly did.

Where is it written that we have the unique authority and mandate to determine justice and carry out executions based on our unilaterally proclaimed judgments? There is world justice and even an international court set up to administer it, it is for them to decide justice in this case, not your erotic fantasies of a sexy Judge Dredd character that excites you as you imagine the blood he can release in your name.

Tell me, why does the idea of unilaterally usurping justice from the proper venue and applying death to more civilians via military strikes excite and interest you hawks so much?

Do such people suffer some disorder that links pleasure with killing or something and if so is there help available for those afflicted?

[Cryptoad]

83. World court ,,,, you jest

Without jurisdiction it is powerless. I find it amazing that people who once stood up for the rights of the oppressed are now content to believe that a leader of Nations can use WMD's on people and they should not suffer an consequences .

btw there is no need for personal attacks.

and I would not consider myself a "hawk" . I fought in Nam, and protested the War on my return, I opposed the GOP Clusters Fuck in Iraq and Afghanistan . and I am not supporting a war with Syria.....

But if we let people like Assad free range to use WMD on people , He will continue to do so at an even greater cost to the rest of the world......

[Dragonfli]

97. I JEST? It is literally legally not our place to play "Judge Dredd" no matter how sexy the costume.

The chemical weapons treaty says disputes settled by the UN. Nowhere does it say US' obligation. http://t.co/ny6ZqS4JKB

Article XII. Measures to Redress a Situation and to Ensure Compliance, Including Sanctions

1. The Conference shall take the necessary measures, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, to ensure compliance with this Convention and to redress and remedy any situation which contravenes the provisions of this Convention. In considering action pursuant to this paragraph, the Conference shall take into account all information and recommendations on the issues submitted by the Executive Council.

2. In cases where a State Party has been requested by the Executive Council to take measures to redress a situation raising problems with regard to its compliance, and where the State Party fails to fulfil the request within the specified time, the Conference may, inter alia, upon the recommendation of the Executive Council, restrict or suspend the State Party's rights and privileges under this Convention until it undertakes the necessary action to conform with its obligations under this Convention.

3. In cases where serious damage to the object and purpose of this Convention may result from activities prohibited under this Convention, in particular by Article I, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law.

4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.

[Cryptoad]

125. Well ,,,,

we just need the UN to send them a letter requesting they stop ?

How absurd!..... I will take your response to my question as a No , justice does not apply to Assad!

[Dragonfli]

139. Take it to mean what it means - rule of law applies to all, EVEN US as well as him.

Your interest in justice is strange, it appears to include breaking international law. Excuse me if I am not impressed with the ideas of justice from someone urging the breaking of the law.

[dflprincess]

95. And what happens to the women in Syria if our new best friends take over?

They will have no justice and the U.S. has a history of being very slow to grant asylum to women who are abused and tortured by fundamentalist regimes that we have supported.

[Cryptoad]

124. Can I take that as a

NO?

[questionseverything]

148. the rebels you wanna prop

Al-Qaida-linked rebels launched an assault Wednesday on a regime-held Christian village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus — part of a brutal battle of attrition each side believes it can win despite more than two years of deadlock.

As the world focused on possible U.S. military action against Syria, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel in the village of Maaloula and shelled the community below, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The attack came hours before a Senate panel voted to give President Barack Obama authority to use military force against Syria — the first time lawmakers have voted to allow military action since the October 2002 votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-09-04/french-parliament-to-debate-syria-strikes

[rhett o rick]

137. Do you find it easier to ask question like this than actually make a statement?

Here's where I stand.

Why should we be the almighty decider in this conflict?

Why are we ignoring the UN isn’t that conservative behavior?

We have no business judging the Syrian government's human rights after what we did in Iraq and Vietnam.

I firmly believe our interference will not help and, based on historical evidence, will make things worse.

We cant afford to be the world's police force. What part of WE CANT AFFORD, doesn’t the Admin understand?

What safety net will we be asked to sacrifice for this war? SS or Medicare?

Where do you stand?

[Cryptoad]

144. I know where I stand

Im trying to understand how anybody could defend the use of WMD without any repercussions .

btw. I have posted my stands repeatedly .......

[rhett o rick]

149. No one is defending the use of WMD without repercussions. Some disagree on

the type of repercussions and who should be repercussing. There are a lot of atrocities that go unpunished around the world. I question the choice of what ones we find so horrible that we must punish quickly. And plez dont try the "chem" weapons is the red line crap. We used chemical weapons in Vietnam and helped Hussein use them in Iraq. Or maybe there is a statute of limitations. I am not buying the rush to avenge theory.

[noiretextatique]

155. bush is that you?

or condi or colin or dick...or the other LIARS who claimed there were WMD in Iraq.

[indepat]

43. The lust to kill outweighs the desire to save lives? Where one puts one's money

tells us.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. At the very least, can we as a group stop taking about reducing the military budget?

After Clinton left office and there was talk about a "peace dividend," what happened?

The answer is 9/11. We were attacked by Iranians, or Iraqis, or Saudis, or Afghans, or a group of somebodies definitely Arab or Persian or whatever.

Then when we are supposed to have austerity to solve the Cat-Food Commission crisis or other crisis, what happened?

All of a sudden we have another reason why we have to pay for another war in the Middle-East?

The answer is to please just stop talking about cutting the military budget. The existing programs for the children in this country and elsewhere have a greater chance of not being cut if we would just leave the military budget alone.

[Dragonfli]

49. I agree, we must avoid more of these "punitive strikes" they feel they need to use

"to send a message" to us unruly serfs that we must not speak of cutting military profits.

To even speak of reducing unnecessary military spending will result it seems in the sending of the message:

"that's a nice budget you are trying to put together to benefit all Americans and a lovely 18 year old child you have there as well, shame if something happened to them because an evil tyrant must be stopped literally at any cost to the treasury and lives of young men useful in fighting in police actions" (we don't do war anymore, just euphemisms for it)

[valerief]

48. What do dying children have to do with protecting petrodollars?

Which can only be done by killing, clearly.

[Beartracks]

51. POVERTY is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

52. WAR WAR WAR

Say adios to your retirement, folks.

[Owl]

70. Yep....

[another_liberal]

59. Why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017143201

[Aerows]

61. It's immoral to feed starving children

Their parents should have thought about that before having.

Bombing the shit out of children, their parents and their food supply is much better.

[polichick]

62. No money to be made on starving kids...

We'd have to set up some corporations for that first.

[gate of the sun]

66. because we actually live in a crazy culture

that picks and chooses what to really care about, it's better to care about what's going to get the jazz on with the media and profit the corporations than it is to really do humanitarian work. We could make the world a better place if all worked together but that's not the priority in the world.

[MotherPetrie]

71. K&R

[L0oniX]

91. Hey ... I know of someone who might know where Sudan is...

[MannyGoldstein]

93. She should move to Minnesota's 6th Congressional District

Michelle Bachmann's departure has created an opening for that kind of thing.

[dflprincess]

98. Oh Manny, give us a break.

We don't need another one of those. Besides, there's plenty of crazies up in Bachmann's district to take her place - how do you think she kept getting reelected?

[MannyGoldstein]

102. But the word salad thing is very, very difficult to get just right

I'm in awe of people who can do it, Lord knows I try. Certainly, I have some natural ability in that area, but my gibberish doesn't compare with Bachmann's.

[dflprincess]

108. Well, you do have a point there.

And Miss "USA Americans" certainly does seems to have Bachmann's ability but most the state is holding out a faint hope that someone sane might be elected in the 6th next year.

[MannyGoldstein]

110. I used to work with someone who lived in that district

She said that it was a pretty odd place. Although I can never quite figure out if they're just nuts, or Bachmann was a Jesse Ventura-esque goof on us all.

[dflprincess]

111. They're just nuts

On the rare occassions I have to drive through Sterns or Becker counties (that make up a portion of the district) I make sure the windows are rolled up and the doors are locked.

[jazzimov]

96. I don't know. We do what we can.

But, if as many countries signed on to a treaty to end starving children as they signed on to end chemical warfare, maybe something will get done.

As with many things, it seems there is a "lack of political will." Perhaps we SHOULD push to end starving children.

In the meantime, we do what we can.

[joshcryer]

100. Food aid has its own problems.

It tends to actually make the problem worse.

Paper: http://www.econ.northwestern.edu/seminars/Nemmers11/Nunn.pdf

So, now you're on the record supporting strikes against Syria if Warren backs them, now you're pumping USAID which actually contributes to civil war.

Fascinating.

[MannyGoldstein]

103. Good idea. Let's end food stamps.

Austerity is what's best for the poor.

[joshcryer]

105. That's different from what USAID does.

USAID is basically used by agribusiness, large corporate conglomerates, to dump their food waste on poor countries. It's edible, nutritious, but also undercuts local farmers.

Here's another article: http://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2008/03/10/how-us-food-aid-policies-perpetuate-poverty

Indeed, the people in that article actually argue that if USAID were to do some good then it would better spend cash (ie, food stamps) in countries and require locally produced goods. But that's not how the US operates, because those big agribusinesses need to get paid.

[MannyGoldstein]

106. Since I never mentioned USAID,

I figured it was OK to state that you wanted to eliminate food stamps.

You put words in my mouth, I put words in yours, and we're all good, yes?

[joshcryer]

109. By what other mechanism does the US provide food aid?

[MannyGoldstein]

112. I don't know, but that's not the point.

The point is to help starving people.

Part of that *might* be fixing a broken infrastructure - if it's actually broken, which I don't know about.

[joshcryer]

119. Fixing the distribution network costs nothing.

If anything it would save money because there would be less delivery fees.

It would cost the agribusiness though because they would no longer be getting corporate welfare in the name of aiding people.

Don't think you've thought this one through. It makes a nice charged OP though.

[treestar]

113. I thought dead was dead?

Whether starvation or chemical attack, what difference does it make? That's the view on neo DU when it comes to other deaths, why not include starvation too?

[ProSense]

132. Also, inevitable:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023599609#post20

[workinclasszero]

133. No money to be made feeding starving kids

Big money..HUGE FREAKIN PILES OF FILTHY LUCRE...get made with bombs and missiles.

Same reason big pharmacy doesn't want to make drugs that save peoples lives...if they don't hold a patent on them.

[hughee99]

146. I don't think bombing malnourished children instead of Syria will help any.

But I'll wait to hear Sec. Kerry's argument on that first.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

156. We can do better that that, Manny...

Let's bomb the starving children. Take them out. Problem solved.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You're welcome.

[DeSwiss]

157. Why?

[center]''We are lead by the least among us.'' ~Terrance McKenna[/center]

- That's why.....

[Dragonfli]

166. Oh I like Terrance, I've just begun rereading "True Hallucinations" as I found my original copy

recently and after 35 some years since my original read it is almost brand new again. I had totally forgotten some of the odd characters he met at the beginning of that journey.

We do appear to fancy the same writers and subjects, perhaps that is why I like most of what you post. I think we are probably of the same "clan" so to speak, similar wavelengths and patterns and such.

[DeSwiss]

167. As do I.

- A couple of my fav diversions where Terrance is prominently mentioned......

Dedroidify

History ends in green

[Dragonfli]

168. You have shared Dedroidify with me in the past and it has since displaced most of the

time I used to spend watching netflix on the computer, not only are dozens of my favorites prominent there, but I find myself discovering new programming and deprogramming material at a rate of discovery I have not experienced in decades. A great resource that I must thank you for sharing.

I am unfamiliar with History ends in green, but the cover page looks promising, it appears the rest of my netfix time will soon fly out the window LOL, no great loss, information is more entertaining to me than distractions anyway, no matter how much I may appreciate some of the stories or cinematography - information is more satisfying to me personalty and I genuinely enjoy new knowledge as much as most movie buffs enjoy a great film.

[DeSwiss]

169. I thought so, but wasn't sure....

...and these below are permutations I reached by starting at Dedroidify.

- Some of these links are old and cranky, but then so am I. Enjoy!

Robert Anton Wilson
http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/index.htm

Reality Sandwich
http://www.realitysandwich.com/

Global Consciousness Project
http://www.glcoherence.org/monitoring-system/live-data.html
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Mind & Spirit
http://www.erowid.org/spirit/

[Dragonfli]

170. Thanks, and I resemble that old and cranky remark as well /nt

[tclambert]

161. But to feed all those starving children for a year would cost almost a billion dollars!

One billion. Lots less if you order from the discount menu, or buy in bulk from Costco.

Obviously, we cannot afford such extravagant generosity. That money could be spent to keep the Department of Defense going for another fraction of one day. You know, like a Thursday morning, maybe. Priorities, man. You wanna leave us defenseless for one Thursday morning?

[colsohlibgal]

162. Lots of Death And Suffering Here And Elsewhere

Dead is dead no matter the means.

I also remember hearing about how precision like our bombing was in both Iraq endeavors and it turned out to be mostly BS.

In the end, it seems to me collateral damage creates even more people who despise us. I also am sure the percentage of pro war folks would go way, way down if we fought wars here, the only time real war here happened was when we fought ourselves.

And supposedly we have a spending problem yet we always have money for defense and military actions but...... not so much for all the suffering people in the US, who are unemployed or under employed.

In general our priorities are beyond screwed up.