AdamK: the problem is that the russians and chinese effectively have more influence in the middle east than we do in the long haul, and whatever those two have to say is the way things will go


Unless we keep farking with them, in which case it's gloves off all around and WW3.

Happy Hours: Another thing, Qadaffi was a terrorist (and fark Bush and Condi Rice for kissing and making up with him).

Simple. Obama's anti-war statements against Bush would suddenly be great TV and radio commercials for Romney's campaign. Obama is very worried about the election and isn't going to do a damn thing to help anyone but himself until December.

intelligent comment below: Brick-House: No, he should have dropped a couple of GPS guided 2000 pounders on that farker to keep the tech out of their hands.


Ah yes, smart move, bombing Iran. Too bad he didn't have you in his best and brightest group. He doesn't know what he's missing

By flying spy planes over their country we were already commiting an act of aggression, we should have just bombed the thing before they collected it. No loss of life or tech. So, yes he should have had me on his best and brightest team.

sno man:
Wait 'til Syria hears about this development.
Let alone the map makers.

Syria has always been and always will be a land locked nation. Please move along nothing to see here.

And in case you forgot...



/hot like a bomb blast in a day care center in Syria

Please don't raise the price of oil masta.

cman: I am not trying to troll here, serious question.

Obama intervened in Libya. I am curious, what is different about Syria? Why not interven there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Defense_Force

We don't attack countries who can shoot down our planes.

cman: I am not trying to troll here, serious question.

Obama intervened in Libya. I am curious, what is different about Syria? Why not interven there?

Here's why:



Also, a Russian military base is located in the Syrian port of Tartus, which serves as the 720th base of material and technical support to the Russian Army.

intelligent comment below: traylor: oil

HARR HARR Afghanistan's oil production is ZERO, why did you invade Afghanistan HARR HARR


It might have the largest untapped mineral wealth, not to mention important oil and gas pipelines that can go South rather than relying on going through Russia

Oh sure, you know it's surprise attack-time when you see a chance for an oiled-up gassy pipeline that goes SOUTH.

/jk
/but, isn't it ridiculous and deeply depressing for you that your country spent billion$ to invade an other country in the name of counter-terrorism just he in hope of a farking pipe?
/btw, how is that Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline going on?

He may be planning a fundraiser there and doesn't want to bomb out the location.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/busy-month-for-obama-campaign - with-fundraisers-in-switzerland-sweden-paris-and-communist-china/

knbber2: The election.

Done in one.

Brick-House: Please don't raise the price of oil masta.




When you catch Obama holding hands with, and slipping some tongue to, a Saudi ruler get back to me. Untill then... Meh.

Sure could use a boobies thread tonight.

/Just sayin'

Oil? I think not.

sammyk: Do we really want another decade of fighting two middle east wars?


I vote no. And I'm also flipping the No lever on behalf my friend Greg, who can't flip it himself, since most of his arms are still somewhere in Anbar province even though he's back in the States.

It is NOT OUR JOB to un-fark every farked-up country that is killing it's citizens. NOT. OUR. JOB. I'm really sorry for the suffering of the Syrian people. But if they want a revolution, great, do it without us. Why? Because FARK THEM that's why. Iraq wasn't worth Greg's arms and Syria sure as fark isn't worth a drop of American blood.

St_Francis_P: I'm pretty sure it's because there is no UN consensus. If he gets Russia and China aboard, it may happen.

Fark those two countries and just get the consent of the rest.

Happy Hours: cman: St_Francis_P: Lsherm: Why in the hell do Fark libs now think it's a good idea to fight in another Middle East war? They're two steps away from full civil war, why would we want to get involved with that? Even their neighbors don't want any part of it.

You seriously think a lib posted that headline?

I second this.

This is not your typical Liberal headline.

A lot of so-called liberals were quick to tell Bush he could wage all the war he felt like and even encouraged him by appropriating money for him to do so.

Liberals were pretty happy when Obama flew sorties over Libya.

Why wouldn't liberals at least want us to help out the Syrian rebels by shooting down helicopters and immobilizing land-based armor?

I'm a lib, and I'm all for it. fark Assad. fark him with a stick.

But, there is no oil, sadly. And Russia would be most displeased..

Shocktopus: sammyk: Do we really want another decade of fighting two middle east wars?


I vote no. And I'm also flipping the No lever on behalf my friend Greg, who can't flip it himself, since most of his arms are still somewhere in Anbar province even though he's back in the States.

It is NOT OUR JOB to un-fark every farked-up country that is killing it's citizens. NOT. OUR. JOB. I'm really sorry for the suffering of the Syrian people. But if they want a revolution, great, do it without us. Why? Because FARK THEM that's why. Iraq wasn't worth Greg's arms and Syria sure as fark isn't worth a drop of American blood.

Thunderingapplause.gif

Lsherm: Why in the hell do Fark libs now think it's a good idea to fight in another Middle East war? They're two steps away from full civil war, why would we want to get involved with that? Even their neighbors don't want any part of it.

You can tell someone's political leaning just from a headline?

StephaneCharette 2012-07-15 09:51:25 PM (skipped: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread)
barefoot in the head 2012-07-15 09:51:38 PM (skipped: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread)
SeedFreak [TotalFark] 2012-07-15 09:06:37 PM (skipped: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread)
sweet-daddy-2 2012-07-15 09:07:02 PM (skipped: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread)
plc5_250 2012-07-15 09:09:31 PM (skipped: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread)

That is just farking sad.

Farkengruven: One last question. Did they get the YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?

Fun fact: Robert Joseph, the NSC official who inserted the infamous "16 words" into Bush's 2003 State of the Union (claiming Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger) is currently working for Romney's campaign. In fact, a whole bunch of the neocons from that time are on his campaign.

cman: Yeah! Israel is a horrible nation

Well, yes, actually, they are.

Logistic is just mad because his wife left him, had three kids with a better guy and he is a horrible father to his son, Damien...

Unfortunately I know him in the real world

Sliding Carp: How many baby incubators did they steal from the hospital?

I was going to say....

"Oh yeah, sure they were attacking your troops... Sooo uhhh, want to fight our war for us? Please send cash to rebuild everything too."

cman: I am not trying to troll here, serious question.

Obama intervened in Libya. I am curious, what is different about Syria? Why not interven there?

there is nothing different.
it's a hivemind and until dear leader decides to change course, maintaining the status quo is what they will support. once the leader waggles its ass to announce a shift in policy they'll claim the situation has changed and now it is just like libya and we need to intervene.
seriously. that's the answer. have you ever seen any two of fark's prolific liberal posters ever disagree about anything? almost everyone of them has the exact same views on literally everything. I can only think of two off them off hand that ever weigh evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions about proper policy.

Lsherm: Why in the hell do Fark libs now think it's a good idea to fight in another Middle East war? They're two steps away from full civil war, why would we want to get involved with that? Even their neighbors don't want any part of it.

I don't think it's a liberal vs. conservative thing any more. The U.S. and its allies simply have no more money to take part in the kind of distant foreign conflicts which, in all honesty, have never been any of their business to begin with. Roll up the drawbridge: let's stay out of their countries as long as they (and their populations) stay out of ours; save money, preserve social cohesion, prevent mutual recriminations, it's win-win!

cman:

I wonder how much effort and money is being put in to covert operations in Syria.

Probably more than you'd think. They have things the US might steal for their corporate overlords.

They havent exactly liked us over there for a long time.

Gee, I wonder why?

This could be an opportunity, an olive branch, for our two sides to finally start to work together, if we help the resistance overthrow their government.

Can't we let the Muslim Brotherhood run their own revolution? They got Mubarak dethroned in Egypt, after all.

I'm no fan of the al-Assad family or their way of doing things, nor am I enamored of the Salafists who want to replace them and let loose their ownb reign of terror on the non-Sunni minorities.

A better idea, which I've only heard in one other place, is for the Alawi, Druze and Shia areas to secede from Syria. The French had that idea during their Mandate: they had a place for the Alawi and one for the Druze. Basically the western mountainous region should be an independent refuge for these minorities who are not viewed as Muslim, and hence less than human, by the Sunnis. Offer the Sunni rebels a negotiated settlement, including access to the port of Latakia by a contractual corridor, like "the West" had access to West Berlin for 40 years, in exchange for the majorioty of the country where a majority of them live.

The Baathist regime was supposed to be way of secularizing Syria enough to protect the non-Sunni minorities from religious oppression. It's too bad the Assad family went too far in the wrong direction, but America should have as much sympathy for the religious (and sometimes ethnic) minorities of Syria as we do for the Jewish minority's region in the Middle East as a whole.

With this in mind, pehaps Walid Jumblatt and the Druze of Lebanon, who have long had the ear of the Assad family, could provide useful mediation in this process.

Or you could just bribe and manipulate the Russians and Chinese to stand by while a NATO-led coalition does to Syria what it did to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, perhaps including a clause that the new Sunni regime show some pity for the minority populations. As long as "the West" gets Syrian oil who cares about a million or so "ragheads" whose religions we understand very little?

We do know that they have huge stockpiles of WMDs, their current locations and where they're being moved to so that's kind of a plus for US. Unless the Aussies are making up stories now like the Brits did last time.

AntiquatedThinker: Farkengruven: One last question. Did they get the YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?

No, we did. 40 Tons of it. From Iraq. Surprisingly, National Geographic was the only news outlet to cover this. I forget which issue it is in.

Snopes: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

Status: False

Fun fact of the day: Syrian defector's codename is "Curveball."

/isn't it?

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Lsherm: Why in the hell do Fark libs now think it's a good idea to fight in another Middle East war? They're two steps away from full civil war, why would we want to get involved with that? Even their neighbors don't want any part of it.

I don't think it's a liberal vs. conservative thing any more. The U.S. and its allies simply have no more money to take part in the kind of distant foreign conflicts which, in all honesty, have never been any of their business to begin with. Roll up the drawbridge: let's stay out of their countries as long as they (and their populations) stay out of ours; save money, preserve social cohesion, prevent mutual recriminations, it's win-win!

It is liberal v. conservative. It's just that Obama is a moderate so he's just slightly to the right of Clinton, which makes him slightly to the left of Bush. The neocons from Bush have taken over Romney's campaign so if you want a lot more adventurism in the middle east vote for him. If you want the kind of targeted strikes with international support that Obama and Clinton used (remember the right laughing at Clinton shooting a missile up a camel's butt? Those were targeted strikes instead of massive invasions) then vote Obama.]

If you want to shut down international relations move into your mom's basement and vote RON PAUL!

gogogadgetfark: Logistic is just mad because his wife left him, had three kids with a better guy and he is a horrible father to his son, Damien...

Unfortunately I know him in the real world

Dude, no.

DrPainMD: Gee... maybe they wouldn't be attacking us in Iraq if we weren't in Iraq. Sending soldiers and spooks all over the world to torture, murder and rape people, then claiming "defense" as justification for escalating the violence, is BS. And, if you're too stupid to realize that none of what our military is doing overseas is even remotely defensive, don't come crying to me when you get sent home in a body bag, 'cuz I don't give a damn.

3/10; doesn't blame us for Syrians are attacking their own people.

Dude, re-read the article. He was talking about the fact that Syria was not only allowing fighters to enter Iraq from Syria but that they were actively encouraging it. Also, making a statement such as how the U.S. sends "soldiers and spooks all over the world to torture, murder and rape people, then claiming "defense" as justification for escalating the violence, is BS. And, if you're too stupid to realize that none of what our military is doing overseas is even remotely defensive, don't come crying to me when you get sent home in a body bag, 'cuz I don't give a damn." just proves what a tard you really are. What are you? Twelve? You sound like the morons on 4chan.

DrPainMD: Gee... maybe they wouldn't be attacking us in Iraq if we weren't in Iraq. Sending soldiers and spooks all over the world to torture, murder and rape people, then claiming "defense" as justification for escalating the violence, is BS. And, if you're too stupid to realize that none of what our military is doing overseas is even remotely defensive, don't come crying to me when you get sent home in a body bag, 'cuz I don't give a damn.

I give that a meh/10.

ZzeusS: AdamK: the problem is that the russians and chinese effectively have more influence in the middle east than we do in the long haul, and whatever those two have to say is the way things will go


Unless we keep farking with them, in which case it's gloves off all around and WW3.

No outside power has ever brought meaningful stability to the region anyways, the best any of the big 3 can do is appeal to base instincts and hope after enough chaos has occured that the winning side is friendly

that the russians and chinese have no ideals about peace in the region will outlast our willingness to be involved

odinsposse: It is liberal v. conservative. It's just that Obama is a moderate so he's just slightly to the right of Clinton, which makes him slightly to the left of Bush.

Obama is in no way a moderate; his personal history suggests that his convictions are far to the Left of where, for political expediency, he has so far been compelled to govern.

The neocons from Bush have taken over Romney's campaign so if you want a lot more adventurism in the middle east vote for him.

You're making the common leftie mistake of assuming that anyone to the right of you is a "neocon". As it happens, there are also libertarians and paleo- conservatives on the Right who are opposed to foreign adventurism (whether out of consideration for the sheer cost involved, or simply because it is held that we ought to keep out of foreigners' affairs to the same degree that we would expect them to keep out of ours).

If you want the kind of targeted strikes with international support that Obama and Clinton used (remember the right laughing at Clinton shooting a missile up a camel's butt? Those were targeted strikes instead of massive invasions) then vote Obama.]

To be fair, on a tactical level Clinton's strikes were wholly ineffective.

If you want to shut down international relations move into your mom's basement and vote RON PAUL!

That's a nice try at an ad hominem but I don't live in the U.S., so even if I thought the American political system wasn't totally shot beyond repair I wouldn't be able to participate in it anyway.