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.

(Telegraph)   Defecting Syrian diplomat admits that the Syrian government was behind attacks on US soldiers in Iraq. They attacked our troops, they are attacking civilians, and most importantly, they have oil. What are we waiting for?   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 247
    More: Interesting, Bashar, Bashar al-Assad, Assad, Iraq, military intelligences, attack helicopters, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Syrians  
•       •       •

9253 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2012 at 8:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-16 02:25:59 AM

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.


Is that you, Pastor Phelps?
 
2012-07-16 03:00:37 AM

ontariolightning: Americans deserved to be attacked in Iraq. There was no reason to ever be there.


Wow, you are so edgy I think I just cut myself on your comment!!
 
2012-07-16 03:06:48 AM
Libya was low-hanging fruit.

Syria would be a cast iron biatch.

I'm still down for invading it. I need another deployment.
 
2012-07-16 03:09:08 AM
:
[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

John Quincy Adams


We shame our founding fathers
 
2012-07-16 04:37:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: 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?

To be serious, I'm guessing because we didn't unilaterally intervene in Libya. The rebels asked France and NATO for help, and they in turn requested US assistance. So far, none of the groups involved in the uprising against Assad have asked ANYONE for help.


They've been positively begging for help from anyone. It is being reported, but so far there have been very lax statements from many powers on the matter, except China and Russia who keep stonewalling at the U.N. because they are uncomfortable with 'regime change'.

USA Today

CNN Link

Feb 2012 BBC

No Fly zone requests

China and Russia veto UN resolution
 
2012-07-16 05:02:23 AM

BronyMedic: cc_rider: *cough* Curveball *cough*

"Fool me once..."

It's not even really a secret that Syria has an active NBC program in their country. It's pretty common knowledge, hell, Janes Defense and FAS has a list of chemical and biological weapons production and test facilities on their websites.

They managed to gas and kill 15 of their own men in 2007 when they were loading a SCUD-C with a Mustard Gas warhead.

the ham sap gwailo: To be fair, check your history, the region was farked up long before the British/French/Italan/German empires meddled in it. The Russian empire had its turn in Afghanistan a couple of decades back, now its the turn of the US empire.

Unless we're talking about a fictional national entity in Shiro Masmune's Ghost in the Shell Universe, you just lost all right to claim an unbiased position.


No, I'm talking about the real world. So what was your point?
 
2012-07-16 06:11:58 AM

qualtrough: [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

John Quincy Adams

We shame our founding fathers


I don't know who these "founding fathers" are, but they sound like a bunch of socialists.
 
2012-07-16 06:13:31 AM

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?


srios answer: We've been at war since 2001. I don't suppose that the American electorate are tired of all our tax money going to south asia and the middle east to kill families, when it could stay here and feed families.


But if you're so gung ho to start a war, subby, go right ahead and volunteer to fight for the Free Syrian Army. They need more warm bodies.
 
2012-07-16 06:52:45 AM
the ham sap gwailo: BronyMedic: cc_rider: *cough* Curveball *cough*

"Fool me once..."

It's not even really a secret that Syria has an active NBC program in their country. It's pretty common knowledge, hell, Janes Defense and FAS has a list of chemical and biological weapons production and test facilities on their websites.

They managed to gas and kill 15 of their own men in 2007 when they were loading a SCUD-C with a Mustard Gas warhead.

the ham sap gwailo: To be fair, check your history, the region was farked up long before the British/French/Italan/German empires meddled in it. The Russian empire had its turn in Afghanistan a couple of decades back, now its the turn of the US empire.

Unless we're talking about a fictional national entity in Shiro Masmune's Ghost in the Shell Universe, you just lost all right to claim an unbiased position.

No, I'm talking about the real world. So what was your point?


If you're talking about the real world, then yes, you've lost all right to claim an unbiased position on the matter.

The United States is not an empire or colonial power. There are no colonies in the middle east. In addition to this, the United States bears no resemblance to the colonial policies of the greater European powers during the Age of Colonization and Imperialism.

The only people who like to claim that we're an "Empire" are disingenious persons who want to confuse participation on a stage of globalization with something as shameful as forcible colonization, and all of the connotations it brought with it.
 
2012-07-16 07:13:37 AM

St_Francis_P: cman: St_Francis_P: 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?

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

I wonder how much effort and money is being put in to covert operations in Syria. They havent exactly liked us over there for a long time. 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.

I'd be shocked if we weren't doing some covert ops.


This is hardly a revelation. Even discounting other things, given how long Syria has been running a counterfeiting operation printing US money in the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon, I expect we are in the second generation of American covert ops.
 
2012-07-16 08:38:59 AM

sno man: Amos Quito: Snapper Carr: Because if a defector says it, it must be true


So farking what? You're not saying that it was a mistake to go to Iraq an spend trillion$ of dollars and tens of thousands thousands of lives based on a bunch of hyped-up exaggerations and outright lies... are you?

ARE YOU?

While you guys (collective) were burning Dixi Chicks albums, I didn't buy any cause I'm not that big a fan of their music, but they were on the right side.


Let's go over this again:

- Intelligence folks cook the books on behalf of a group of people (including Rumsfeld) who had been arguing for the fall of Iraq since Bush I.
- President convinced by advisors that intel is legit.
- Advisors and "insiders" both convince the UN and Congress to support a war.
- Congress passes bill with fairly large margin supporting war and comitting troops
- Bush takes it in the face and keeps grinning because he can't do anything else without looking like an even bigger idiot.

But yes, let's keep pointing the finger/blaming Bush and demeaning him fro the behavior of a whole group of people who all took steps to get us there, since the President can't unilaterally declare war and invade a country without a whole shiatload of additional stuff.
 
2012-07-16 08:50:15 AM

dennysgod: Patients subby, the GOP are still working on their talking points before they start pushing for Obama to do something, then once he gives the go ahead to send in the calvary, complain that we are intervening.


The worst part is that your partisan self probably thinks the opposing side is nothing but a bunch of mouth breathing idiots... It seems pretty likely given the content of your message and the specifically chosen words you opted for.

The reality is that you're not in a position to judge. The reality is that you shouldn't use words that you fail to comprehend.

So, I'll make it a point to keep an eye on your further comments. Unless, well, you're speaking in code? What has the place where Jesus supposedly died got to do with this? Do you even understand the political platforms that you appear to be so passionate about? They are pretty complicated and you can probably ask your mother to explain some of the bigger words for you, you may have to wait until her "date" has left so that she doesn't hit you in the head with a bottle of cheap schnapps again.

It isn't that I disagree with the liberals nor is it that I'm a fan of the GOP. In fact I'm rather liberal myself, I can understand the tenets, and I'm not blindly partisan (and I surely wouldn't be without understanding it). It is that you personally are an idiot and I'm not partisan enough to engage in make-believe. I'd suggest you stick to the wrestling or movie threads and let the adults discuss the more complex subjects.

No, that "mistake" wasn't you making a typographical error. No, that mistake was you demonstrating so much more ignorance than you'd ever expected to. You may as well burn that account and start anew. The word is CAVALRY and there are no viable excuses.

So, seriously, stick to the wrestling threads but first delete your account or create a new one and abandon this one.
 
2012-07-16 09:35:21 AM

UnspokenVoice: dennysgod: Patients subby, the GOP are still working on their talking points before they start pushing for Obama to do something, then once he gives the go ahead to send in the calvary, complain that we are intervening.

The worst part is that your partisan self probably thinks the opposing side is nothing but a bunch of mouth breathing idiots... It seems pretty likely given the content of your message and the specifically chosen words you opted for.

The reality is that you're not in a position to judge. The reality is that you shouldn't use words that you fail to comprehend.

So, I'll make it a point to keep an eye on your further comments. Unless, well, you're speaking in code? What has the place where Jesus supposedly died got to do with this? Do you even understand the political platforms that you appear to be so passionate about? They are pretty complicated and you can probably ask your mother to explain some of the bigger words for you, you may have to wait until her "date" has left so that she doesn't hit you in the head with a bottle of cheap schnapps again.

It isn't that I disagree with the liberals nor is it that I'm a fan of the GOP. In fact I'm rather liberal myself, I can understand the tenets, and I'm not blindly partisan (and I surely wouldn't be without understanding it). It is that you personally are an idiot and I'm not partisan enough to engage in make-believe. I'd suggest you stick to the wrestling or movie threads and let the adults discuss the more complex subjects.

No, that "mistake" wasn't you making a typographical error. No, that mistake was you demonstrating so much more ignorance than you'd ever expected to. You may as well burn that account and start anew. The word is CAVALRY and there are no viable excuses.

So, seriously, stick to the wrestling threads but first delete your account or create a new one and abandon this one.



Breath in the nose...hold...and breath out the mouth, now, and I am only saying that because I care, there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Seriously, wow.
 
2012-07-16 10:21:52 AM

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?


In all seriousness, it's the libyan problem writ large: who takes over once Assad is out? It's been known that the Syrians made up the bulk of the "Al-qaeda in Iraq" forces since the middle of the Iraq war.

However, the folks who were fighting us in Iraq are the same folks that now make up the Syrian opposition forces. Basically Assad (and his father before him) is a Ba'athist like Saddam was, which meant that like Saddam he pretty much ruthlessly suppressed the Islamic Militant groups in his country and jailed their leaders. In the early part of the Iraq war, when it looked like the war really was going to be a cakewalk, many prominent PNAC folks started playing Babe Ruth and pointing at Syria as the next place we were going to invade. Assad decided therefore that if we got bogged down in Iraq, we'd be too busy to invade him. So he went into his jails and cut a deal with the radical Islamists: I'll let you fight the infidels and wage holy war to your heart's content on the condition that you GTFO Syria and fight in Iraq instead. And so a pipeline across the Iraqi border was created for Syrian Jihadis (and the Saudi money that funded them). When the combination of US forces and the "Anbar Awakening" made these Jihadis persona Non grata in Iraq, many of them, now trained and combat-hardened, turned their eyes back to Syria and realized that Assad was, in their eyes, just as bad as the Americans, or even worse because while they were infidels, he was an apostate.

So on the one hand Assad clearly needs to go, but on the other, in Colin Powell's words, if we break it, we buy it. We really don't want Assad in charge anymore, but neither do we want Salafists Jihadis running Syria either, and right now there is no viable third option
 
2012-07-16 10:38:32 AM

knbber2: The election.


Done in one. This is EXACTLY what i thought.
 
2012-07-16 10:39:32 AM

Magorn: 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?

In all seriousness, it's the libyan problem writ large: who takes over once Assad is out? It's been known that the Syrians made up the bulk of the "Al-qaeda in Iraq" forces since the middle of the Iraq war.

However, the folks who were fighting us in Iraq are the same folks that now make up the Syrian opposition forces. Basically Assad (and his father before him) is a Ba'athist like Saddam was, which meant that like Saddam he pretty much ruthlessly suppressed the Islamic Militant groups in his country and jailed their leaders. In the early part of the Iraq war, when it looked like the war really was going to be a cakewalk, many prominent PNAC folks started playing Babe Ruth and pointing at Syria as the next place we were going to invade. Assad decided therefore that if we got bogged down in Iraq, we'd be too busy to invade him. So he went into his jails and cut a deal with the radical Islamists: I'll let you fight the infidels and wage holy war to your heart's content on the condition that you GTFO Syria and fight in Iraq instead. And so a pipeline across the Iraqi border was created for Syrian Jihadis (and the Saudi money that funded them). When the combination of US forces and the "Anbar Awakening" made these Jihadis persona Non grata in Iraq, many of them, now trained and combat-hardened, turned their eyes back to Syria and realized that Assad was, in their eyes, just as bad as the Americans, or even worse because while they were infidels, he was an apostate.

So on the one hand Assad clearly needs to go, but on the other, in Colin Powell's words, if we break it, we buy it. We really don't want Assad in charge anymore, but neither do we want Salafists Jihadis running Syria either, and right now there is no viable third option


Concur, pretty much right down the line.

And, I just don't see a downside to fighting between radical Muslims on one side, and neo-fascist Muslims on the other. The more killed, the better, as far as humanity at large is concerned.

As hard as I am on Bible-thumping "Christians", I prefer them to "modern" hard-line Muslims, who seem stuck in the Middle Ages, but have access to modern weaponry...thanks, in large part, to our "allies" in Saudi.
 
2012-07-16 11:18:58 AM

platedlizard:

Nevertheless, it should be said that the Bushes are good friends with both the royal family and the bin Ladins.

Citation needed

 
2012-07-16 11:25:20 AM

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?


Libs are only happy when radical Islam gets power. See Lybia, Egypt, and soon to be Afganistan.
 
2012-07-16 11:56:22 AM

ladyfortuna: apres_ski_god: intelligent comment below: FormlessOne: We're not the world's police


So you want your cake and eat it too. You want cheap subsidized free flowing oil, but not all the grunt work required to keep that region stable and all the big OPEC leaders like Saudi happy.

You want all your Fortune 500 companies free reign into every part of the planet, but don't understand that requires a "worlds police"

With Fracking and the oil sands we don't need the middle east. Anytime the West gets involved in the middle east it gets vilified. So let's sit this one out (as we should have with Libya)...r2p is a cheap excuse for humanitarian imperialism.

Uh. Fracking has been linked to earthquakes in the UK, Ohio, and I know some other places although I can't remember the names off the top of my head, along with the pollution potential both to groundwater and air quality near the well heads. Oil sands oil takes nearly twice as much energy to extract as regular oil wells and huge swaths of the Boreal forest have been cleared for the operations. I'm sure you and others are going to flame me for bringing up what can be researched in hundreds of articles and reports at this point, but flame on because I'm not buying the spiel that these sources are 'better'.

Also not advocating middle east involvement, but I wanted to point these things out.


Fracking is what kicked off the Arkansas swarm and is still rumbling away today. Some reports of wildlife and tree die-offs in the area of Conway and Searcy are of some concern as well. Some in the USGS are suggesting that this may be linked to volcanic activity in the area, but don't want to discuss it in detail.
 
2012-07-16 11:58:24 AM

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?


Don't have time to read all but so I'm not sure if anyone else has answered this but the answer is one word: France. France gets most of their oil from Libya, Syria not so much. The rest is just cake icing.
 
2012-07-16 12:10:35 PM
assets.sbnation.com

/hot as the fires of mt. doom
 
2012-07-16 12:49:38 PM
I'm not for farking with Syria, mostly because it might hurt my chances with the gorgeous Syrian chick who works at the local smoke shop. There's already not much of a chance there, but we don't need to do anything to hurt that. She's told me she won't go out with American men, but it's not stopped me from trying again and again.

It's probably a good thing I have no political power, but the only thing I've seen out of these wars is my friends coming back headfarked and the reluctance of middle eastern immigrants to date American men, neither of which am I fond of. Oh, and a royal farking of the American economy, but since I can't find work anyways I'd go for the "half of my close friends are now crazy thanks to your pointless wars" argument. One of my best friends is so farked he can't hold a job or... really do anything but live peacefully with his wife, when he came back I let them live at my place for awhile, she has no reason to be a gigantic coont but he's a mess and I don't blame him. If I wasn't stronger and faster than he is, I'd be worm food at this point for simple shiat like waking him up in the morning. There's a lot of derision towards these guys, it was a pointless war and they volunteered, but I'm not about to hold their decisions against them, 'lot of 'em had no other real choice but the military.

/hang around with a lot of infantry.
//tired of seeing my friends come home half-feral and maimed for no farking reason.
///and... I'm covered in blood and my hands are busted up, I better figure out what I did last night.
 
2012-07-16 01:10:38 PM

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?


Obama didn't intervene in Libya. NATO did, led by France and Britain. We pitched in, as the main NATO bringer of force, but it wasn't an Obama initiative. Notice how we never had any troops on the ground, unlike the Frogs and Brits. If the UN and NATO want to take out Assad, I'm sure we'll help, but Syria is much more Europe's and Russia's problem than ours.
 
2012-07-16 01:41:14 PM
Here's the Obama doctrine, which differs considerably from the Bush doctrine: Use international diplomacy and multilateral pressure in the form of economic sanctions to pressure bad-actor regimes to change their policies (Iran, North Korea, Burma). In cases where military intervention is necessary to prevent genocide (Libya), make the rest of the world take their share of the burden. When international anti-American terrorists are being harbored/tolerated (Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, etc.), use small-footprint special ops forces and air/sensor supremacy to flip the assymetrical warfare scale in our direction (aka, send SEALs in to shoot them in the face, or blow them up with drones).

The Bush doctrine was to reserve the unilateral right to use military force, up to and including invasion/occupation, to change regimes we saw as promoting or harboring terrorists at "war" with the United States.

The only reason the punk kids think Obama is just Bush II is that Obama tidied up Iraq and is tidying up Afghanistan before getting our army back in garrison. If he uses force in Syria or anywhere else, it's going to be in the form of air strikes and limited special forces on the ground. DoD (except for the Green Berets and Seabees) is out of the nation-building business.

Source (one of many; I didn't make this stuff up).
 
2012-07-16 01:56:08 PM
How does an article about Syria aiding terrorists become another Fark Jew-bashing thread? I know racism is funny but save it for relevant threads.
 
2012-07-16 01:56:19 PM

Happy Hours: 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?

A few things. For one, Putin is Assad's BFF and Russia has a vote in the UN's Security Council.

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

We really don't care about Syria.

After things turned out so well in Libya (sarcasm), we're not sure the devil we don't know will be better than the devil we do know.

It's much more in the middle of the Middle East - they have strong ties to Iran and while some crazies think we're looking for any excuse we can to get into a war with Iran, we really don't actually want to do so.

We're also sick of this shiat.

And it wouldn't help Obama get re-elected.


How, exactly, was Qadaffi/Gaddafi a terrorist? Is it because he was one of the few who didn't pander to the demands of the powers that be?
 
2012-07-16 02:06:22 PM

lumiere: Happy Hours: 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?

A few things. For one, Putin is Assad's BFF and Russia has a vote in the UN's Security Council.

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

We really don't care about Syria.

After things turned out so well in Libya (sarcasm), we're not sure the devil we don't know will be better than the devil we do know.

It's much more in the middle of the Middle East - they have strong ties to Iran and while some crazies think we're looking for any excuse we can to get into a war with Iran, we really don't actually want to do so.

We're also sick of this shiat.

And it wouldn't help Obama get re-elected.

How, exactly, was Qadaffi/Gaddafi a terrorist? Is it because he was one of the few who didn't pander to the demands of the powers that be?


Well, there's the whole state sponsored terrorism thing.
Then, there's the whole "using terror on your own people" thing
 
2012-07-16 02:39:48 PM

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?


Waiting for the Muslim Brotherhood tobe in a position to take over there too
 
2012-07-16 03:19:51 PM

mbillips: Here's the Obama doctrine, which differs considerably from the Bush doctrine: Use international diplomacy and multilateral pressure in the form of economic sanctions to pressure bad-actor regimes to change their policies (Iran, North Korea, Burma). In cases where military intervention is necessary to prevent genocide (Libya), make the rest of the world take their share of the burden. When international anti-American terrorists are being harbored/tolerated (Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, etc.), use small-footprint special ops forces and air/sensor supremacy to flip the assymetrical warfare scale in our direction (aka, send SEALs in to shoot them in the face, or blow them up with drones).

The Bush doctrine was to reserve the unilateral right to use military force, up to and including invasion/occupation, to change regimes we saw as promoting or harboring terrorists at "war" with the United States.

The only reason the punk kids think Obama is just Bush II is that Obama tidied up Iraq and is tidying up Afghanistan before getting our army back in garrison. If he uses force in Syria or anywhere else, it's going to be in the form of air strikes and limited special forces on the ground. DoD (except for the Green Berets and Seabees) is out of the nation-building business.

Source (one of many; I didn't make this stuff up).


Nail. Head. I despise drone strikes, but I really, really don't like full scale invasions. Obama knows more about the repercussions of trekking through sovereign countries it would appear. President Bush Jr. steered the ship so poorly internationally (and domestically, but that's another thread) that Obama is trying to clean up a mudslide with a soiled mop. Obama makes his own mistakes, but not seemingly on an hourly basis like his predecessor.
 
2012-07-16 03:20:47 PM

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


How, exactly, was Qadaffi/Gaddafi a terrorist? Is it because he was one of the few who didn't pander to the demands of the powers that be?


What? Gaddafi was a terrorist because he blew up Pan Am flight 103. Were you born in 1992 or something? I thought that was pretty common knowledge.
 
2012-07-16 03:24:06 PM

dennysgod: Seriously, wow.


My sentiments exactly. I have to wonder if you are forced to eat with a spoon and wear a helmet. Better call in the bear calvary? You'd think spell check would clue you in... Does it hurt? Seriously, does it bother you emotionally to know you're that stupid or are you unaware of it? Your last comments indicated that you're in denial. You shouldn't be. You should take me serious and absolutely avoid trying to deflect as if it is my problem.

I'm just the messenger though I suspect I'm not the only one. Did you dismiss the rest of the people as being overly caffeinated as well? Because, well, yeah - you're truly an idiot. I'm not just making that up or anything. That isn't a spelling, typographical, or even excusable error. It is a glaring beacon that says, "Look at me! I'm attempting to use words that I don't understand so that people think I'm smart!!!"

You wanted attention, you got it.
 
2012-07-16 03:32:10 PM

UnspokenVoice: dennysgod: Seriously, wow.

My sentiments exactly. I have to wonder if you are forced to eat with a spoon and wear a helmet. Better call in the bear calvary? You'd think spell check would clue you in... Does it hurt? Seriously, does it bother you emotionally to know you're that stupid or are you unaware of it? Your last comments indicated that you're in denial. You shouldn't be. You should take me serious and absolutely avoid trying to deflect as if it is my problem.

I'm just the messenger though I suspect I'm not the only one. Did you dismiss the rest of the people as being overly caffeinated as well? Because, well, yeah - you're truly an idiot. I'm not just making that up or anything. That isn't a spelling, typographical, or even excusable error. It is a glaring beacon that says, "Look at me! I'm attempting to use words that I don't understand so that people think I'm smart!!!"

You wanted attention, you got it.


Oh, and I was going to let it slide but perhaps you also meant to use the word "patience?" The first could have fit, perhaps, if one were enduring something difficult but I'm now unable to believe that you meant to use "patients" given your limited response and attempt to deflect instead of accepting responsibility.

Accountability is a pain, I know, so it must be my fault...
 
2012-07-16 04:22:38 PM

dennysgod: Breath in the nose...hold...and breath out the mouth, now, and I am only saying that because I care, there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Seriously, wow.


There is a good reason he is Fav'd as 'Needless Ad Hominem'. The bias he'll read into your post is strong and he'll spit on your mother to get his 'point' across. It is a truly unfortunate style. I wouldn't take offence, he probably barks at his dog too.
 
2012-07-16 06:37:34 PM

Kit Fister: - Intelligence folks cook the books on behalf of a group of people (including Rumsfeld) who had been arguing for the fall of Iraq since Bush I.
- President convinced by advisors that intel is legit.



So Bush was ignorant and tricked by his own administration? Are you sure you want to go with this argument?
 
2012-07-16 06:41:28 PM

bhcompy: Well, there's the whole state sponsored terrorism thing.
Then, there's the whole "using terror on your own people" thing



You just used language that makes every middle eastern country guilty. Are you sure you want to go with that?


mynameist: Libs are only happy when radical Islam gets power. See Lybia, Egypt, and soon to be Afganistan.



Radical Islam is not in LIbya.

Radical Islam was put into power by Reagan and the conservatives in Afghanistan. Radical Islam is not in power in Afghanistan.

Oppressive military dictatorships were supported in Egypt by conservative Republicans. Radical islam is not in power in Egypt

Your knowledge of history is disturbing.
 
2012-07-16 07:01:40 PM

intelligent comment below: Kit Fister: - Intelligence folks cook the books on behalf of a group of people (including Rumsfeld) who had been arguing for the fall of Iraq since Bush I.
- President convinced by advisors that intel is legit.


So Bush was ignorant and tricked by his own administration? Are you sure you want to go with this argument?


I'm saying that bush, obama, etc, all rely on advisors that are subject matter experts. The president is not all-knowing.
 
2012-07-16 07:09:57 PM

intelligent comment below: You just used language that makes every middle eastern country guilty. Are you sure you want to go with that?


Why does that even matter? Do you bend definitions to fit the narrative you want? A rose by any other name smells just a sweet(that is to say it's still a rose, just in case)
 
2012-07-16 07:47:59 PM

bhcompy: Why does that even matter? Do you bend definitions to fit the narrative you want? A rose by any other name smells just a sweet(that is to say it's still a rose, just in case)



And yet you still drive a gas guzzling car and live a lifestyle making all these terrorist supporting rulers rich. Especially so-called American "allies"

But you still can't see the irony or hypocrisy when calling out the "evil libs"


Kit Fister: I'm saying that bush, obama, etc, all rely on advisors that are subject matter experts. The president is not all-knowing.



Right, and Reagan just "couldn't recall" anything he may or may not have known about Iran-Contra.

When something good happens, it was the President! When something bad happens, he was just going along with what everyone told him, he's innocent!
 
2012-07-16 11:56:33 PM

BronyMedic: the ham sap gwailo: BronyMedic:

the ham sap gwailo: To be fair, check your history, the region was farked up long before the British/French/Italan/German empires meddled in it. The Russian empire had its turn in Afghanistan a couple of decades back, now its the turn of the US empire.

Unless we're talking about a fictional national entity in Shiro Masmune's Ghost in the Shell Universe, you just lost all right to claim an unbiased position.

No, I'm talking about the real world. So what was your point?

If you're talking about the real world, then yes, you've lost all right to claim an unbiased position on the matter.

The United States is not an empire or colonial power. There are no colonies in the middle east. In addition to this, the United States bears no resemblance to the colonial policies of the greater European powers during the Age of Colonization and Imperialism.

The only people who like to claim that we're an "Empire" are disingenious persons who want to confuse participation on a stage of globalization with something as shameful as forcible colonization, and all of the connotations it brought with it.



You clearly have your understanding of imperialism stuck in another century. And you call some of the USA's leading commentators in international relations and geopolitics disingenuous? Do you know what the word means? If you do, it really displays your own bias and mindset.

Commentators of many shades from the political spectrum, in the likes of Chomsky, Hardt and Negri, Martin Walker (of the World Policy Journal), Michael Ignatieff, Michael Walzer, Pat Buchanan, and Max Boot, have identified and commented that American imperialism exists, although they all see it as something very different from the sense of the former Roman or British empires, such as Ignatieff's 'empire lite', or a hegemony as Walzer has argued, or 'virtual empire' suggested by Walker. You might dismiss these note worthies as left wing liberals, hawks, neocons or whatever to justify your use of the word 'disingenuous', but the fact is many Americans have been talking about it for many years in serious analysis.

In any case, there is every reason to consider the establishment, growth and behaviour of the USA since the early 19th century as imperialism without being a left wing apologist. Just look at a few simple facts: Jefferson exhibited classic imperialist expansionism as he eagerly awaited the fall of the Spanish empire; the Louisiana Purchase; the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii; while the whole ethos of expansion westwards was itself explicit imperialism. Just a few examples, look at history and you will find more.

I'm not saying US imperialism/hegemony is necessarily a bad thing. Just that it helps to identify the US position in the context of the Middle-East. As Max Boot argued over Iraq, the sooner the US public wake up and discuss American imperialism without dismissing it as left-wing rhetoric (as Rumsfeld did), the sooner they will be able to bring the government to task over such things as commitment of troops to foreign wars, the loss of its competitive edge, and its financial mess. The US believes too much in the theory of 'American exceptionalism', a concept invented by a Frenchman! Time to move on and accept what is for what it is.

What has happened since the end of WWII, perhaps to a greater extent since the end of the Cold War, with US intervention in or support of various conflicts for either ideological or (allegedly) economic reasons - Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Somalia, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan - all suggest the projection of force for imperialistic reasons. As an example of US projection of force to protect its interests in Asia, I ask you, if the US welcomes the growth of China as both an economic partner and competitor, why does the US need to deploy the 7th Fleet in the South China Sea and plans to deploy a total of 6 carrier groups in the Pacific by 2020?

In the modern sense, you don't have to have colonies trodden under foot to be an empire, although the US has had and still does have territories under its wing as either direct or quasi-colonies (just look at where some of the overseas bases are), without even considering the aspect of ideological or cultural imperialism.

Here's a few links you might want to look at to broaden your viewpoint -

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/american-imperialism-no-need-run-away-label/p 5 934
http://web.archive.org/web/20061021013321/http://www.freeindiamedia.c o m/america/5_jan_04_america2.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6669/is_2_19/ai_n28936778/
 
2012-07-17 12:18:22 AM

intelligent comment below: And yet you still drive a gas guzzling car and live a lifestyle making all these terrorist supporting rulers rich. Especially so-called American "allies"

But you still can't see the irony or hypocrisy when calling out the "evil libs"


1) Where did I call out evil libs?
2) The gas I purchase comes from Venezuela, mainly
3) I drive a Japanese econobox

The only hypocrisy is your own
 
2012-07-17 03:33:35 AM

lumiere: How, exactly, was Qadaffi/Gaddafi a terrorist? Is it because he was one of the few who didn't pander to the demands of the powers that be?


You're kidding, right?

Who the fark do you think set off a bomb in a Berlin disco and also took down Pan Am 103?
 
2012-07-17 12:43:06 PM

bhcompy: lumiere: Happy Hours: 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?

A few things. For one, Putin is Assad's BFF and Russia has a vote in the UN's Security Council.

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

We really don't care about Syria.

After things turned out so well in Libya (sarcasm), we're not sure the devil we don't know will be better than the devil we do know.

It's much more in the middle of the Middle East - they have strong ties to Iran and while some crazies think we're looking for any excuse we can to get into a war with Iran, we really don't actually want to do so.

We're also sick of this shiat.

And it wouldn't help Obama get re-elected.

How, exactly, was Qadaffi/Gaddafi a terrorist? Is it because he was one of the few who didn't pander to the demands of the powers that be?

Well, there's the whole state sponsored terrorism thing.
Then, there's the whole "using terror on your own people" thing


Tman144: lumiere: Happy Hours: cman: I am not trying to troll here, serious question.

How, exactly, was Qadaffi/Gaddafi a terrorist? Is it because he was one of the few who didn't pander to the demands of the powers that be?

What? Gaddafi was a terrorist because he blew up Pan Am flight 103. Were you born in 1992 or something? I thought that was pretty common knowledge.




To all of you who replied:

Unless any of your family members lived and/or worked in Libya during the 80s, or you have friends who are actually Libyan, I kindly ask you to shut the f&%k up. Your knowledge of Libya amounts to what you are fed by the MSM. And what you know is what they want you to know; nothing more, and nothing less.

If you want a true account of Libya, feel free to ask me. For now, all I can tell you is things will get a lot worse now that Gaddafi is gone. I never supported Gaddafi and his regime, but I can honestly say that the day will come when they will regret taking sides with the NTC.
 
2012-07-17 02:19:37 PM

lumiere: To all of you who replied:

Unless any of your family members lived and/or worked in Libya during the 80s, or you have friends who are actually Libyan, I kindly ask you to shut the f&%k up. Your knowledge of Libya amounts to what you are fed by the MSM. And what you know is what they want you to know; nothing more, and nothing less.

If you want a true account of Libya, feel free to ask me. For now, all I can tell you is things will get a lot worse now that Gaddafi is gone. I never supported Gaddafi and his regime, but I can honestly say that the day will come when they will regret taking sides with the NTC.


The fact that you could call him a terrorist doesn't change the fact that he provided stability for the region and his country, much in the way Saddam did. Things generally get worse before they get better after a revolution, this is what happens when governments fail.
 
2012-07-17 02:55:17 PM

bhcompy: lumiere: To all of you who replied:

Unless any of your family members lived and/or worked in Libya during the 80s, or you have friends who are actually Libyan, I kindly ask you to shut the f&%k up. Your knowledge of Libya amounts to what you are fed by the MSM. And what you know is what they want you to know; nothing more, and nothing less.

If you want a true account of Libya, feel free to ask me. For now, all I can tell you is things will get a lot worse now that Gaddafi is gone. I never supported Gaddafi and his regime, but I can honestly say that the day will come when they will regret taking sides with the NTC.

The fact that you could call him a terrorist doesn't change the fact that he provided stability for the region and his country, much in the way Saddam did. Things generally get worse before they get better after a revolution, this is what happens when governments fail.


Libya needed Gaddafi just as much as Italy needed Mussolini. Libya is unlike any other North African country in that it is fragmented and highly tribal. Right now, unbeknownst to those who swallow up what is reported by the MSM, the various tribes are plotting and vying against the current government. To name the main tribes: Abu Llail, Misurata, Al-Awaqir, Qadhafah, Magariha, Zuwaya (Zawiya), Warfalla and the LIFG jihadists.

The problem with tribal systems in North Africa and the Middle East is that fundamentalist Islam can sometimes be the one unifying factor that helps them consolidate power. I would rather see a dictator who has helped the majority of Libyans, then a country that slips into civil war because there is a lack of a strong central government. Did Gaddafi commit crimes? Ya betchya. Will more crimes be committed on an international level if fundamentalists fill the power vacuum? You can count on it. Eastern Algeria and Mali are already seeing an influx of ill-gained weapons coming in from the Libyan border.

And you mentioned Iraq; even the staunchest of my anti-Saddam acquaintances look back to a period of relative peace and calm under him, compared to the shiat that is going on over there now. If you talk about post-revolution chaos, this fits the Western model quite well (ex. French revolution); but it rarely does with North African and Middle Eastern countries because there are always ulterior powers that meddle in their affairs.

As for Syria, the model differs entirely. I want Assad out as well, but if that power vacuum is filled with a puppet who caters to the rich aristocracy simply to further the gains of outside nations, or a fundamentalist Muslim government that isn't representative of the people, who are we to decide the fate of the Syrian people?
 
2012-07-18 01:24:14 AM

lumiere: Libya needed Gaddafi just as much as Italy needed Mussolini. Libya is unlike any other North African country in that it is fragmented and highly tribal. Right now, unbeknownst to those who swallow up what is reported by the MSM, the various tribes are plotting and vying against the current government. To name the main tribes: Abu Llail, Misurata, Al-Awaqir, Qadhafah, Magariha, Zuwaya (Zawiya), Warfalla and the LIFG jihadists


www.planetcalypsoforum.com
 
2012-07-18 01:39:42 AM

Shocktopus: lumiere: Libya needed Gaddafi just as much as Italy needed Mussolini. Libya is unlike any other North African country in that it is fragmented and highly tribal. Right now, unbeknownst to those who swallow up what is reported by the MSM, the various tribes are plotting and vying against the current government. To name the main tribes: Abu Llail, Misurata, Al-Awaqir, Qadhafah, Magariha, Zuwaya (Zawiya), Warfalla and the LIFG jihadists

[www.planetcalypsoforum.com image 353x132]


Then don't post.
 
2012-07-18 09:13:57 AM
lumiere: Libya needed Gaddafi just as much as Italy needed Mussolini. Libya is unlike any other North African country in that it is fragmented and highly tribal. Right now, unbeknownst to those who swallow up what is reported by the MSM, the various tribes are plotting and vying against the current government. To name the main tribes: Abu Llail, Misurata, Al-Awaqir, Qadhafah, Magariha, Zuwaya (Zawiya), Warfalla and the LIFG jihadists.

Do you know how I know you know nothing about Mussolini, or how unpopular he was among Italians before and during the Second World War? Hell, the entire island of Sicily surrendered to the Allies, and THEN fought against him.

Seriously. The guy was like a living, breathing, comic book supervillain.

But, then, I guess murder. state sponsored multinational terrorism, and totalitarianism is ok as long as the trains run on time.

I find it ironic you'd mention a fascist who pandered to Islamic fundamentalists.
 
Displayed 47 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report