Soxbadger

How arent we trying it? The article seemed to clearly suggest that if Syria would sign the CWC (chemical weapons convention) that it could be enough... But lets be honest, at any time Syria could have become a party to the CWC, they just have shown no desire to, until of course the US threatened military warfare. But I guess well discount that threat as part of the diplomatic process.

There will be some hilarious irony if he ends up convicted for threatening his wife. Although I dont really trust this lady.

So if the Syria destroys their weapons and the US doesnt attack your mad, and if the US attacks your mad?

Hank and Jesse can die. It can be the Nazis after Walt when Walt refuses to cook for them. Who knows though.

Nice play by Forte and Cutler there

Yep I dont wear jewelry so I dont wear a watch. Ive actually had the "who wears watches anymore" conversation a few times recently.

I looked into the future and Gronk is going to be out a few weeks this year because of injuries related to dancing at an EDM show. Book it b****es.

What do you want me to say wite? Its week 1, after week 1 you can actually make intelligent arguments for why a guy should start. Trying to guess at the Patriots offense right now is difficult until I see it.

Well, do you need a lot of points or just points. Sudfield is the more boom bust guy, you have to expect G-Reg will get 5 or so no matter what.

If you are the one trading Rodgers, Im just not sure thats a good idea in general unless you are getting a definitive upgrade. IE Stevie Johnson to Dez Bryant But Murray could quite possibly out perform Mojo.

Id see CSNY in a second if they came to Chicago. Chili, I think Yeezus really works best when you listen to the entire album, not just individual songs.

Well they were fine for a good portion of the game. They gave up 14 points in the first half, so for half the game they were fine. Then in the second half they for no reason began to blitz Manning. Although I guess the potential reason is that due to the offense ineptitude they believed that the defense would have to make bigger plays.

Pfft softball, kickball is where its at. Going for 3rd championship in 4 seasons tonight.

Ravens defense was fine for a good portion of the game. The problem was due to the offensive inconsistency they were forced to stay on the field far to long. Flacco just destroyed them that game. I dont know if its the big paycheck or what, but the guy was just not focused and playing terrible. The interception that should have been returned for a td was pathetically predictable. He wasnt setting his feet, he was throwing across his body, etc etc. Thats not what you expect out of a 100 million dollar man.

Ravens, Flacco specifically, really helped to give that game away. The Broncos offense looks good, but the defense may have some issues. (Edit) Flacco looked terrible. He was lazy with his throws, not setting his feet and just generally not playing good football.

Steve, The way I have found law clerks is to contact law schools that are near by and get in touch with their career services or whatever. They then generally list the posting and then the resumes come in.

Not every program does it. But I can understand why teams like Indiana and Illinois would do it to try and fast track their recovery.

With the NFL season starting tonight JPN is back to preview this weeks line up. http://flapship.com/nfl-week-1-preview/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 04:34 PM) You're right. Chemical weapons were used in a civil war the United States is not involved in. The United States should consider actions to prevent their further use, but none of the military options presented make sense or offer the hope of actually doing anything. If the U.S. launches limited "punitive" strikes too small to change the course of the war, then what does Assad care? He may as well use them again, the U.S. strikes weren't enough to change the course of the war, they just killed people. IF the U.S. launches large enough strikes to destabilize the Assad regime, then the Syrian country falls into libyan style chaos and the chemical weapons are up for grabs. If the U.S. is prepared to occupy the country, spend a few trillion dollars, and lose thousands of additional American lives, this would be the only realistic way to insure both security of the Syrian state and respond to the chemical weapons use. But you yourself have ruled that out. Pick one. You've advocated for the first one most of the time, killing people. How does that punish anyone if the chemical strike was successful and the response isn't strong enough to change the course of the war? What does Assad care about limited strikes? You dont know what will be the tipping point. Maybe he can withstand 1 attack, but if the 1 attack comes with the promise of extremely increased attacks if he does it again... That would likely dissuade him. And basically in your outcome you prove NK and Iran right. If you get bad enough weapons, you can paralyze the international community from doing anything. Theyll be so afraid that the weapons will end up in the "wrong" hands, that they are willing to let them remain in the current "wrong" hands and let those "wrong" hands use them to kill people.

lol How many times can you avoid answering the question about chemical weapons? Its as if you dont even want to address the issue.

No Im saying the Syrians can fight Assad. But neither of them can use chemical weapons. It has nothing to do with sides, it has everything to do with enforcing treaties. Because if we dont, then what is the point of agreeing to anything? You point out a "mutual defense agreement" as if it means something. Yet you dont think the Geneva Convention and subsequent treaty mean something? Which is it, either we enforce our agreements or we dont? And you keep saying "killing". I dont believe Ive ever suggested that. Ive merely argued that your solution "giving them aid" and doing nothing more, is not a response to the use of chemical weapons. You are the one who wants to do nothing. My solutions could include: 1) ban of all weapons sales to Syria govt for next 10 years, 2) no fly zone, 3) etc etc. Just because you are unwilling to discuss any option but the "bread" option, doesnt mean that I have to accept a world where chemical weapon attacks are allowed.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) I do have to back Badger's stance on this one. However, the long delay regarding this issue kind of takes away the impact of the upcoming bombings. It's like, 'We're voting ... we're soon going to bomb you. Get ready.' Then the bombs will begin I guess. How can you have P.C. bombings? Should be interesting to see how this is all received worldwide. The problem is that the rest of the world chickened out. The people who signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention are sitting on the sidelines and so the US has to once again do the heavy lifting. In order to do this without causing extreme political problems in the US, Obama has to play the game. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) Slippery slope arguments are usually terrible arguments and this one is no better. If Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel, or Syria used Chemical weapons on Israel, they're actually launching a war against an ally of the United States. The United States should respond in kind. This is not complicated. The big difference? In that case you've changed the game. You're no longer pretending that somehow this is a great humanitarian cause, you've made it an actual military cause. No one is going to give a crap about the number of people killed in a war that one of those countries starts, nor should they. It's war. That's very different from launching a war to save lives. Launching a war to fight and win a war has a history of working and the U.S. is pretty good at it. Launching a war to save lives by selectively killing the right people does not have a good history of success. No you are the one who is creating this imaginary distinction between a civil war, revolutionary war and a regular war. In all wars people die. In all wars there are sides. In the US civil war there were sides, the south was actually launching a war against the north. In Syria there are sides, the govt is launching a war against the rebels. What you are saying is that you value certain countries and people differently. So if Israel (our friend) is attacked, you want to help them. But if Syrians (random people) are dying we should just sit on our hands because well, it might get messy. Thats kind of funny considering the most "messy" wars in history are World War I and II, which in both cases arouse from "military causes." And its not selectively killing the right people. Its sending a message to everyone that if you use chemical weapons, there will be consequences. I dont care if its Assad or the rebels, if they use chemical weapons, they need to pay for it. Basically your saying if the Syrian rebels were more our friends we should help, but since they arent, they can just go die in a shallow grave. Very compassionate.

The end game is to do our best to stop chemical weapons from ever being used in war, civil or otherwise. Otherwise why not just let Iran nuke Israel, because our involvement could cause things to be potentially be worse. Why have any rules I guess?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) It strikes me as a bit strange that we have rules in war...watching you guys argue that it's ok to blow eachother's heads off with guns and grenades, but once you pull out the chemicals, that is downright cheating. I see one common thread here...people are going to die there in unknown numbers regardless of what we do...seems to me the best decision in that situation is to stay the heck out of it then. Its not cheating. Its that after WWI everyone saw the devastation of chemical weapons and said "Hey we may hate each other, we may kill each other, but the effects of chemical weapons are so bad, that even enemies can agree on it." And that is what is at stake. That even if we are enemies, we can still have rules, we can still have some sort of twisted honor about how we treat the enemy as we kill them. Because without some sort of rules, we will all kill each other. That is an absolute certainty. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 03:33 PM) We were more than happy to do so in the 1980's when a state we were aiding in their war against Iran used them extensively. So yeah, barring a better option appearing, sticking head in the sand seems like the right path. I dont care what other people let happen. In the 1930s the US let Hitler get away with things. That doesnt mean if Hitler Jr comes I have to go "Well s***, we didnt stop it in 1930, so i cant stop it now." Just because they were wrong in 1980, doesnt mean I have to be wrong in 2013. I dont let the past historical mistakes of others bind me to their bad course of action. Because historically speaking, letting Iraq use chemical weapons didnt really help anyone. So not sure why thats a good example of why we should let this continue.

Greg, Balta has no answer for you. He just simply wants to paralyze us into in action by reminding us that there will be negative consequences for our actions. The difference between him and I, is that I know there will be very bad consequences, I concede this fact and I still argue that something needs to be done because of reasons I can articulate. On the other hand, Balta simply keeps saying people will die, and we should solve the solution by giving them aid. Who cares that chemical weapons are being used, who cares about the Geneva Convention or any other ant-chemical weapon treaty. Who cares about nukes or biological weapons being used. They can have bread, and bread simply will solve all of these problems. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions, sometimes there will be innocent blood spilled due to that decision... But the hope is, that you make the decisions that will make sure that in the future the least amount of blood will be spilled. Because I cant go back and stop all of this, but I can try and prevent it from ever happening again. And maybe its impossible, but I wont quit like Balta. People mean more to me than that.