Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

This is kind of interesting, as much because it's got to be the most unfortunate name for a journalist writing about relationships that I've ever seen - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/03/40-days-of-dating-date-a-friend

 

A bit harsh, Joe has always come across as a bright young man to me!!!

 

brilliant

 

Unfortunate name, but I've seen a lot worse

 

I tried swimming before and now my knees really are shot, I should try again. I used to swim about 12 years ago during lunchtimes, but I gave up as it was embarrassing when the old grannies would complain I was holding them up in the swimming lane

 

Definitely go. Yes, it was St Godders who suggested I go and I am very grateful that he did so.

 

I have a lot of places I want to go in my life but it's places like that that make it different, and interesting.

 

Just watching the US Senate hearing on Syria. I'm thinking they're right to send some missiles over. Cue Banana calling me a fascist.

 

Been to Menin Gate and Tyne Cot in Belgium.

 

I don't think they have much alternative to be honest. Every single ally of theirs that are involved is looking to them to act as they are the most powerful country with the most resources.

 

Yep, pressure is certainly on the US. Seems like whatever they do people are going to argue with the decision though.

 

Great power, great responsibility.

 

[video=youtube;ckOULenKxiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckOULenKxiQ[/video]

Enjoy

 

Depends who they're firing them at.

 

This article has a map of potential targets (mechanised brigades, armoured brigades, chemical weapons facilities, missile sites, airbases): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

 

Firing cruise missiles will accomplish nothing. There's still very little choice, though; there needs to be some sort of response to the use of chemical weapons, even if it's a somewhat impotent one in the grand scheme.

 

The accomplishment is proving to Syria, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and so on, that the US isn't just full of empty threats. If they were to do nothing about this use of chemical weapons, then not only Assad but also Pyongyang and others might get the idea that they can do the same without consequence.

A secondary accomplishment might be the destruction of some of Assad's arsenal, though that's tricky.

 

Yep, pretty much agree with that. There needs to be some sort of threat at least from the US or nothing will ever be acomplished.

 

That could very easily give the rebels a military advantage, which would be a bad idea.

 

Absolutely, and that's why it is largely necessary. But in the larger story of the Syrian civil war, it'll be a footnote.

Related, but I keep hearing right-wing blowhards lament the fact that Obama doesn't have the strength to simply remove Assad and install 'someone friendly to the US/Israel'. How the **** have they not figured out by now that you cannot cow the world simply by swinging your dick around? You just got stalemated by ragtag militias twice in a decade yet you believe that you can point at a country and say "yeah, replace that guy with some other guy" and it'll happen without any strife?