Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sunshine State News)   Buchanan muses that it may not be a good idea for the United States to ally with al Qaeda in yet another war   (sunshinestatenews.com ) divider line 16
    More: Obvious, al-Qaeda, United States, Syrians, Bashar, Golan Heights, safe zone, Syrian Army, Foreign relations of the United States  
•       •       •

764 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jun 2012 at 9:38 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-05 09:39:46 AM  
I thought Republicans wanted to re-enact everything Reagan did, though.
 
2012-06-05 09:41:40 AM  
But getting directly involved is contrary to the Obama admin's current position, so it must be correct.
 
2012-06-05 09:51:00 AM  
How much treasure should be expended, how much American blood shed so the Muslim Brotherhood can depose the Assad dynasty, take power and establish an Islamist state in Syria?

Wow, Pat Robertson shilling for Assad now. Sad is that.

The guy who was totally okay with the Iraq War back in the day and who currently wants a war with Iran is suddenly concerned about costs?

Go on, pull the other one. It has bells on it.
 
2012-06-05 09:52:35 AM  
We can't get involved in Syria militarily. Full stop.

Syria has close ties to Russia, and the Russians won't let us jeopardize their only port in the region. The analogy would be Russia threatening to invade Saudi Arabia to depose the royal family and expecting the US to just stand there and let it happen. It's ludicrous.
 
2012-06-05 10:01:16 AM  

imontheinternet: We can't get involved in Syria militarily. Full stop.


We won't get involved militarily. It would probably be counter productive to do so. We can still support the pro-democracy Syrian freedom fighters without risking US life or treasure.
 
2012-06-05 10:07:39 AM  

EyeballKid: I thought Republicans wanted to re-enact everything Reagan did, though.


I say this time we send them 1000 cakes and 1000 combination Holy Bibles and Persian phrase books.

Then we trade nukes for hostages.

Then we quadruple previous cocaine production and sales numbers.

We're gonna out-Reagan Reagan!!1! YEEEAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!1!
 
2012-06-05 10:10:30 AM  
All Democrat started wars of the last 40 years used al qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood as the ground troops and were fought specifically for the benefit of them. Carter's Afghanistan, Clinton's Kosovo, Obama's Libya and Egypt.
 
2012-06-05 10:19:57 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Carter's Afghanistan


You mean the war largely fought during the Reagan administration?
 
2012-06-05 10:20:25 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: All Democrat started wars of the last 40 years used al qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood as the ground troops and were fought specifically for the benefit of them. Carter's Afghanistan, Clinton's Kosovo, Obama's Libya and Egypt.


So...the effective ones?
 
2012-06-05 10:29:31 AM  
Pat Buchanan still isn't sure we should have been involved in WWII. Pat is an isolationist first and foremost. That's not an inherently invalid point of view, but it absolutely drives his foreign policy analysis.
 
2012-06-05 11:36:38 AM  

Sabyen91: Noam Chimpsky: All Democrat started wars of the last 40 years used al qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood as the ground troops and were fought specifically for the benefit of them. Carter's Afghanistan, Clinton's Kosovo, Obama's Libya and Egypt.

So...the effective ones?


Effectively empowered al qaeda, yes. The US will always "win" a war when it's allied with al qaeda against a weak non-terrorist nation. We could defeat Israel or Syria and turn it into an al qaeda country in a heartbeat. The only concern is that Russia doesn't seem to share the Democrats love for al qaeda, but they have been powerless to do much about it.
 
2012-06-05 11:50:15 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Sabyen91: Noam Chimpsky: All Democrat started wars of the last 40 years used al qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood as the ground troops and were fought specifically for the benefit of them. Carter's Afghanistan, Clinton's Kosovo, Obama's Libya and Egypt.

So...the effective ones?

Effectively empowered al qaeda, yes. The US will always "win" a war when it's allied with al qaeda against a weak non-terrorist nation. We could defeat Israel or Syria and turn it into an al qaeda country in a heartbeat. The only concern is that Russia doesn't seem to share the Democrats love for al qaeda, but they have been powerless to do much about it.


We should totally just invade and occupy nations. That would make our foreign policy more effective. We should call it something snappy like...oh, I don't know..."The In What Respect, Charlie Doctrine".

/That would really keep al Qaeda from doing nasty things to us.
 
2012-06-05 01:12:07 PM  
We bombed Libya for no good reason except to protect British Oil and to soothe Hopey McChange's butthurt over some low level rebel screaming ""Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes!" to some journalists. It's pretty much whatever Hopey McChange feels like at this point.

/actually, demanding help from Bush might be a good move on the Syrian rebels part
 
2012-06-05 02:38:49 PM  

salvador.hardin: Pat Buchanan still isn't sure we should have been involved in WWII. Pat is an isolationist first and foremost. That's not an inherently invalid point of view, but it absolutely drives his foreign policy analysis.


out of here with your silly facts.
 
2012-06-05 03:45:30 PM  

beta_plus: /actually, demanding help from Bush might be a good move on the Syrian rebels part


Except, I think most of Assad's biggest fans are in the GOP. You know, like when they wanted us to not go into Libya and take all of Goldman Sachs's interests, and Condi's crush, away.
 
2012-06-06 05:15:42 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: the Democrats Republicans love for al qaeda


FTFY.

Seriously, George Bush and OBL were BFFs.

OBL was the Emanuel Goldstein-esque bogeyman Bush used to frighten a nation into compliance.

Bush, in return, was OBL's largest recruiting tool.

Win/Win from both their POVs.

There's a reason Bush never looked seriously for OBL.

He didn't want to find him.

But yeah the guys who put a bullet in OBLs head and actually took the war to AQ are the guys who are really soft on terror.

Do you even listen to yourself?
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report