The Syrian Invasion

[Coito ergo sum]

You seem to have drunk too much of the "exporting democracy" cool-aid. The US, China, Russia etc don't care about foreigners outside of their own interests. The problem for the US is that people see through all the bullshit spin. And all you can say in response to that is "oh please".

News flash -- the Australians and other countries don't care about foreigners outside their own interests either. Other countries are not "better" than the US, China and Russia. They aren't comprised of robed philosophers, making decisions in the best interest of humanity as a whole, to heck with their own self interest. They're humans too and they aren't any different. It's the way humans behave. Of course the US acts in its own interest. All countries do that.

And here it is again. The anti-US butthurt. When are you going to grow up?

I just pointed out a flaw in your rationale, aside from your firm grasp of the obvious -- that the US, like all other countries, gasp, acts in its own interest.

If you weren't so ready to get butthurt, you would have noticed the point there. The point there is that Ian presumably believes that the US is genuine in the "exporting democracy" crap. So your whole post (apart from the butthurt) should have been directed to Ian, as you and I agree on this point. But of course, you can't see that, as all you see is your butt getting red and swollen after someone apparently attacked your dear and beloved US. God, you are a fucking broken record.

Ian is correct about that, because the US believes that democracies, if they can be successfully fostered, are in the US's interest. It's not charity. We tend not to go to war against other democracies.

But, in your last sentence you admit that you "apparently attacked" the US. Pointing out the silliness of your apparent attack is quite appropriate.

[laklak]

Well, I didn't mean it was my red line when I said it was my red line, I mean it was the world's red line. And I didn't mean that I didn't need Congressional approval for a strike when I said I didn't need Congressional approval for a strike, I meant that I didn't need Congressional approval but I actually DID need it because I can do it without that if I want to but I don't want to. OK?

What a goddamned clown, what an international joke. Fucking Jimmy Carter had a better grasp on foreign policy. Might as well give him a red nose and big fucking shoes and shove him and the whole cabinet into a Volkswagen beetle. Putin must be pissing himself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, but George Bush....

[laklak]

Yeah, but George Bush....

Wait for the 10 Minute Hate.

[Pappa]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

[laklak]

Us? Chemical weapons? Perish the thought. They're for "research purposes" only. You know, so we can do researchy things with them. LIke coming up with antidotes and finding peaceful uses for them like removing tough soap scum from shower doors. O'bammy only said a "world without nuclear weapons", nary a mention of Sarin there. Besides, what's a little weaponized insecticide among friends?

[Pappa]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

OK, seems the thing I read was misleading. That was the amount they had prior to 1997. Now they have 3421 metric tons.

[Coito ergo sum]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

I think the stockpile was 31,000 tons at the outset, and has destroyed 90% of that. The remaining 10%, or 3100 tons is what the US is still hanging onto by virtue of the extensions. But, Russia had 40,000 tons, and destroyed 57%, and is still hanging on to like 17000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_W ... Convention

[Pappa]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

I think the stockpile was 31,000 tons at the outset, and has destroyed 90% of that. The remaining 10%, or 3100 tons is what the US is still hanging onto by virtue of the extensions. But, Russia had 40,000 tons, and destroyed 57%, and is still hanging on to like 17000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_W ... Convention

Yeah, see my post above.

[Tero]

Russia needs that. They are going to gas all of Chechnia some day when nobody is looking, or the wind blows it to Syria after all Chechnians are dead.

[Seth]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

I think the stockpile was 31,000 tons at the outset, and has destroyed 90% of that. The remaining 10%, or 3100 tons is what the US is still hanging onto by virtue of the extensions. But, Russia had 40,000 tons, and destroyed 57%, and is still hanging on to like 17000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_W ... Convention

Much of the difficulty with getting rid of the US's chemical stockpile has been eco-whackism and the fruitcakes who keep suing the government every time it comes up with a disposal plan. The costs of litigating the process of destroying the stockpiles is likely approaching the cost of doing so. There's thousands of tons sitting at the Pueblo Army Depot about 60 miles south of my house, and they've been sitting there for the past 25 years that I know of because the fuckwit eco-weenies are paralyzed with fear at the prospect of even touching them to neutralize them...which means that the shells just continue to deteriorate and increase the risks of a release. It's exactly like nuclear waste disposal. The fuckwit anti-nuke jackasses would rather have all that nuclear waste radiating away in rusting barrels and open pools of water all over the US than quit fucking with the government by legal obstructionism so that it can proceed with bagging it all up and stuffing it underground at Yucca Mountain.

Idiots.

[JimC]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

I think the stockpile was 31,000 tons at the outset, and has destroyed 90% of that. The remaining 10%, or 3100 tons is what the US is still hanging onto by virtue of the extensions. But, Russia had 40,000 tons, and destroyed 57%, and is still hanging on to like 17000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_W ... Convention

Much of the difficulty with getting rid of the US's chemical stockpile has been eco-whackism and the fruitcakes who keep suing the government every time it comes up with a disposal plan. The costs of litigating the process of destroying the stockpiles is likely approaching the cost of doing so. There's thousands of tons sitting at the Pueblo Army Depot about 60 miles south of my house, and they've been sitting there for the past 25 years that I know of because the fuckwit eco-weenies are paralyzed with fear at the prospect of even touching them to neutralize them...which means that the shells just continue to deteriorate and increase the risks of a release. It's exactly like nuclear waste disposal. The fuckwit anti-nuke jackasses would rather have all that nuclear waste radiating away in rusting barrels and open pools of water all over the US than quit fucking with the government by legal obstructionism so that it can proceed with bagging it all up and stuffing it underground at Yucca Mountain.

Idiots.

In these instances, I agree with you. Paralysed into inaction is not a useful place to be...

[Cormac]

I read about the 31,000 tons of chemical weapons in the US's stockpile today, and their recurring effort to extend the time they can keep them.

I think the stockpile was 31,000 tons at the outset, and has destroyed 90% of that. The remaining 10%, or 3100 tons is what the US is still hanging onto by virtue of the extensions. But, Russia had 40,000 tons, and destroyed 57%, and is still hanging on to like 17000 tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_W ... Convention

Much of the difficulty with getting rid of the US's chemical stockpile has been eco-whackism and the fruitcakes who keep suing the government every time it comes up with a disposal plan. The costs of litigating the process of destroying the stockpiles is likely approaching the cost of doing so. There's thousands of tons sitting at the Pueblo Army Depot about 60 miles south of my house, and they've been sitting there for the past 25 years that I know of because the fuckwit eco-weenies are paralyzed with fear at the prospect of even touching them to neutralize them...which means that the shells just continue to deteriorate and increase the risks of a release. It's exactly like nuclear waste disposal. The fuckwit anti-nuke jackasses would rather have all that nuclear waste radiating away in rusting barrels and open pools of water all over the US than quit fucking with the government by legal obstructionism so that it can proceed with bagging it all up and stuffing it underground at Yucca Mountain.

Idiots.

In these instances, I agree with you. Paralysed into inaction is not a useful place to be...

Yup.

[pErvinalia]

It would be good if this handing over of chemical weapons works. No need to lob some bombs and piss a whole lot of people off.

[Seth]

It would be good if this handing over of chemical weapons works. No need to lob some bombs and piss a whole lot of people off.

I agree, but I'm not sure I want Putin in charge of what happens to them...