Red Mosquito

right, so it's not, and never was, a scandal.

it is, and always was, a fuck-up. got it.

elliseamos wrote:right, so it's not, and never was, a scandal.

it is, and always was, a fuck-up. got it.

The 'scandal' is that they won't come clean and admit it was a fuck up.

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote:right, so it's not, and never was, a scandal.

it is, and always was, a fuck-up. got it.

The 'scandal' is that they won't come clean and admit it was a fuck up.

who? i think everybody is pretty clear on the fact it was a fuck up. 3 people died whilst supposedly away from a battlefield (quotes the joker from the dark knight). the president has said he ultimately takes the blame, but then there's still finger pointing and the tossing about of "scandal."

elliseamos wrote:

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote:right, so it's not, and never was, a scandal.

it is, and always was, a fuck-up. got it.

The 'scandal' is that they won't come clean and admit it was a fuck up.

who? i think everybody is pretty clear on the fact it was a fuck up. 3 people died whilst supposedly away from a battlefield (quotes the joker from the dark knight). the president has said he ultimately takes the blame, but then there's still finger pointing and the tossing about of "scandal."

First off, I don't think this is a scandal, just bumbling and reactionary political posturing.

BUT, I fucking hate the whole 'I accept responsibility so the discussion is over' thing that happens in modern politics. Saying you accept responsibility, which carries no real consequences, is different than actually accepting responsibility which would mean openly investigating, examining, and correcting the problem. 'My bad, y'all' just isn't enough.*

*general complaint, not specific to this incident

broken iris wrote:than actually accepting responsibility which would mean openly investigating, examining, and correcting the problem. 'My bad, y'all' just isn't enough.*

*general complaint, not specific to this incident

while i mostly agree with you, if the latest info is accurate about the CIA presence at the time, then that would explain alot of the nonexistent investigating. however, it's clearly caused conversation for examining how these buildings are staffed/secured and the recent closure and pull-out of 19 embassies seems like "correcting the problem" in the cheapest way possible. no?

http://news.yahoo.com/nusra-threatens-r ... 09610.html

Nusra threatens to rocket Alawite villages over alleged chemical attack
ReutersReuters – 11 mins ago..

DUBAI (Reuters) - The head of the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front has pledged to target communities from Syria's Alawite faith, followed by President Bashar al-Assad, with rockets in revenge for an alleged chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, according to an audio recording seen on Sunday.

"For every chemical rocket that had fallen on our people in Damascus, one of their villages will, by the will of God, pay for it," Abu Mohammad al-Golani said in the recording posted on YouTube.

"On top of that we will prepare a thousand rockets that will be fired on their towns in revenge for the Damascus Ghouta massacre."

(Reporting by Mahmoud Habboush; Editing by Sami Aboudi and Alison Williams)

Ladies and Gentlemen... the most effective arm of the Syrian resistance! We wish to give them weapons because Shiites/ Alawites are icky and Salafists are wholesome and good, or something.

NPR had a segment on the "duty to protect" with references to NATOs involvement in the Balkans and the like today. Despite their use of Cyrillic, I find it far more likely that our political and military heads could understand the inspirations of the Serbs and other interested parties (ethno-nationalism, pretty straight forward) than that of the Salafists of the Syrian rebellion. Regardless of the wisdom of our involvement in the Balkans, at least the goals for the parties involved were fairly negotiable (where exactly the borders would be drawn). Invoking duty to protect here would just provide a justification to choose sides in a civil war with relatively few good guys, and those that exist being entirely unable to wield power.

I suppose there's a possibility that a limited cruise missile strike or something of the sort would promote peace and humanitarianism in Syria, but I'm not too terribly optimistic.

looks like we are getting involved with this.

BurtReynolds wrote:looks like we are getting involved with this.

Team America?

VinylGuy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:looks like we are getting involved with this.

Team America?

They aren't Minding Their Manners.

Perhaps we do nothing until UN inspectors do their investigations?

Harry Lime wrote:Perhaps we do nothing until UN inspectors do their investigations?

We'll start bombing them this weekend. It's a holiday weekend, nobody will even notice.

Harry Lime wrote:Perhaps we do nothing until UN inspectors do their investigations?

Assuming they get out alive...

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:Perhaps we do nothing until UN inspectors do their investigations?

Assuming they get out alive...

And if they don't? Is the UN going to follow through with the same drastic measures as NATO is contemplating?

Harry Lime wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:Perhaps we do nothing until UN inspectors do their investigations?

Assuming they get out alive...

And if they don't? Is the UN going to follow through with the same drastic measures as NATO is contemplating?

Most likely it will be like Mogadishu and they'll pull them out.

The UN won't/can't do anything without the US.

When only 9% of Americans want a war with an Arab nation, you know it's got to be an obviously bad idea.

broken iris wrote:When only 9% of Americans want a war with an Arab nation, you know it's got to be an obviously bad idea.

Probably a good idea for the workers and stockholders of Raytheon.

The US administration hasn't explicitly stated that they would fire missiles into Syria, so they might be able to save face by penning a particularly strongly worded UN resolution that will be vetoed by Russia immediately. *crosses fingers*

This whole situation is a bit strange. During the cold war, we were concerned about a domino effect of communist regimes. Currently, the Russians are warning about a threat of a domino effect of salafists, and they aren't entirely wrong in that regard. We might be relatively powerless in trying to prevent that from happening, but why urge it along when it is obviously against our interests?

simple schoolboy wrote:The US administration hasn't explicitly stated that they would fire missiles into Syria, so they might be able to save face by penning a particularly strongly worded UN resolution that will be vetoed by Russia immediately. *crosses fingers*

This whole situation is a bit strange. During the cold war, we were concerned about a domino effect of communist regimes. Currently, the Russians are warning about a threat of a domino effect of salafists, and they aren't entirely wrong in that regard. We might be relatively powerless in trying to prevent that from happening, but why urge it along when it is obviously against our interests?

Maintaining the status quo in Saudi Arabia is in our interests, at least in the short term.

simple schoolboy wrote:The US administration hasn't explicitly stated that they would fire missiles into Syria, so they might be able to save face by penning a particularly strongly worded UN resolution that will be vetoed by Russia immediately. *crosses fingers*

This whole situation is a bit strange. During the cold war, we were concerned about a domino effect of communist regimes. Currently, the Russians are warning about a threat of a domino effect of salafists, and they aren't entirely wrong in that regard. We might be relatively powerless in trying to prevent that from happening, but why urge it along when it is obviously against our interests?

From everything I've read, Obama is bypassing the UN and working with NATO and the Arab League.

"Team America has found out weapons and....oh fuck it, we are bored and want to destroy something"