We just attacked Syria with missiles.

[97guns]

Just read a news clip that we launched 60 tomahawk cruise missile at targets in Syria, maybe stock market down tomorrow

[disneysteve]

Futures are down about 0.5% right now.

[kork13]

Good. Using chemical weapons on civilians? Yeesh. There's no justification for that. Only sad bit is that the strikes only targeted the airfield & aircraft that launched the chemical attacks, and not the facilities where such filth is produced/stored/weaponized.

The biggest question will be Russia's reaction.

[PeggyHefferon]

Sickening that our country can't even come together in full support of taking action against such a despicable act. CNN is posting about Trump tweets from 2013 about the possibility of Obama taking action against Syria. Congresswoman Lee is raising a bunch of stink.

Would be nice if we could support our President today.

As for the market, I don't trade so it isn't something I am going to pay much attention to.

[corn18]

Good. Using chemical weapons on civilians? Yeesh. There's no justification for that. Only sad bit is that the strikes only targeted the airfield & aircraft that launched the chemical attacks, and not the facilities where such filth is produced/stored/weaponized.

The biggest question will be Russia's reaction.

Can't bomb the chemicals as that will just spread them and might kill a lot of people.

[kork13]

Can't bomb the chemicals as that will just spread them and might kill a lot of people.

Actually, it can be done quite successfully with minimal collateral damage/effect. Without getting into excessive detail, we (the military) train to it on a very regular basis. Our national policy is (and for decades has been) that we cannot & will not tolerate the use of WMD under any circumstances, which mirrors international treaty and convention. A world in which the use of WMD are tolerated (much less in use against civilians) is not a safe world for anyone.

I was in the mid-east when Syria's civil war first kicked off, and again when the first (of multiple) reports & confirmations of chemical agents being used in Syria came out. In each case, my comrades and I were shocked and a bit sickened that we did nothing.... First we let a country with known chemical weapons destabilize itself without neutralizing that threat or having any assurances that they were at least secured. Then, when evidence of their use was brought to light & subsequently confirmed by the UN, we still did nothing but take a few meaningless, token pot shots from the Mediterranean with no real impact. Basically, we looked at them sternly & wagged our finger at Assad. We can't afford for that to be an acceptable response. I don't have any significant malice toward Obama, but his inaction on this issue was a colossal error.

[/soapbox] I don't mean to lecture, but military strategy is an understandably strong interest of mine.

The hard part about dealing with chemical weapons (or any WMD) is finding it. For unsurprising reasons, governments go to alot of trouble in making them difficult to locate. These facilities could be hidden in plain sight in an industrial district, or buried in a bunker under the desert. Without spot-on intelligence, finding and then hitting the right target at the right time can be difficult.

[corn18]

Actually, it can be done quite successfully with minimal collateral damage/effect. Without getting into excessive detail, we (the military) train to it on a very regular basis. Our national policy is (and for decades has been) that we cannot & will not tolerate the use of WMD under any circumstances, which mirrors international treaty and convention. A world in which the use of WMD are tolerated (much less in use against civilians) is not a safe world for anyone.

I was in the mid-east when Syria's civil war first kicked off, and again when the first (of multiple) reports & confirmations of chemical agents being used in Syria came out. In each case, my comrades and I were shocked and a bit sickened that we did nothing.... First we let a country with known chemical weapons destabilize itself without neutralizing that threat or having any assurances that they were at least secured. Then, when evidence of their use was brought to light & subsequently confirmed by the UN, we still did nothing but take a few meaningless, token pot shots from the Mediterranean with no real impact. Basically, we looked at them sternly & wagged our finger at Assad. We can't afford for that to be an acceptable response. I don't have any significant malice toward Obama, but his inaction on this issue was a colossal error.

[/soapbox] I don't mean to lecture, but military strategy is an understandably strong interest of mine.

The hard part about dealing with chemical weapons (or any WMD) is finding it. For unsurprising reasons, governments go to alot of trouble in making them difficult to locate. These facilities could be hidden in plain sight in an industrial district, or buried in a bunker under the desert. Without spot-on intelligence, finding and then hitting the right target at the right time can be difficult.

I'll agree that I cannot discuss why my statement is true.

[james.hendrickson]

Guys,

We've had a lot of complaints about non-financial topics being posted. I just wanted to pipe up wearing my administrator hat that if we can all please try to keep things finance related - it will make our discussions much more pleasant for everyone.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Has the Everything Else forum title changed?

James, has the title and purpose of the forum this was posted in changed?

I was thinking it was called simply, "Everything Else," but now I'm noticing it is "Everything Else Financial." Is that a change, or have I been misreading for the past 11+ years? (That would not surprise me too terribly much.)
.
.

[james.hendrickson]

Joan,

We had a lot of complaints that there was too much off topic conversation...religion, politics, personal attacks, etc. People felt attacked and it was creating a hostile environment...which was distracting from the purpose of the forums.

So yes BJL584 changed the title of this particular subforum and we are going to display some updates rules/guidelines in the next couple days.

Of course if you have input...by all means the mods and me want to hear from you. The best way to do is probably to PM us.

[Thrif-t]

Really, I think everything else gives something else to talk about. Traffic here is almost non existent. I see limiting this subforum to just something else financial is just going to shut it down.

Why can't people just not open threads that they are not intetested in. The few always get to dictate to the many. How many years has the Everything else forum been here???

[disneysteve]

Why can't people just not open threads that they are not intetested in. The few always get to dictate to the many. How many years has the Everything else forum been here???

The problem with that is that over time, the makeup of the visitors changes. In recent months, we've gotten numerous people posting more political, religious, and other unrelated and controversial topics. A couple of gotten banned as a result because of this and several threads have had to be locked. It just isn't the environment we want to promote. This is a financial discussion site. If you want to talk politics or religion or other stuff, there are plenty of other places to do that.

[PeggyHefferon]

Really, I think everything else gives something else to talk about. Traffic here is almost non existent. I see limiting this subforum to just something else financial is just going to shut it down.

Why can't people just not open threads that they are not intetested in. The few always get to dictate to the many. How many years has the Everything else forum been here???

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

I agree with you about having other things to talk about. I am really enjoying learning more about personal finance, but it seems like every day there is a new thread with statistics about how bad Americans are with their finances. Basically the same information spit out in various ways.

[rennigade]

Actually, it can be done quite successfully with minimal collateral damage/effect.

Right...like the drone strikes. The cool thing about drone strikes is that anyone but the bad guy doesnt get hurt...they're invincible to the death bomb raining down from the sky, lol..just kidding. For everyone 1 "bad guy" a drone takes out 9 civilians also die.

Dont let drone strikes fool you...they're a disaster. When the military says there will be minimal collateral damage...they're full of sh#$. More propaganda the masses soak up.