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.

(Antiwar)   If the enemy is Iran and the enemy of our enemy is our friend, does it make sense to help Al Qaeda?   (original.antiwar.com) divider line 71
    More: Interesting, al-Qaeda, human beings, Iran, Syrians, safe zone, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, Seymour Hersh, non-governmental organizations  
•       •       •

618 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 11:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 12:08:45 PM

malaktaus: qorkfiend: malaktaus: Meanwhile North Korea shiats on us regularly

How does North Korea "shiat on us regularly"?

By threatening us and our allies with war over the slightest provocation, or over nothing at all? By essentially forcing us to give them food, with the implicit threat of nuclear holocaust in Seoul if we refuse, meanwhile spending every last cent they have on the military?


And this qualifies as "shiatting on us" and not "standard geopolitical horse-trading" or "trying to head off massive humanitarian crisis" or "the last thing China wants is a horde of North Korean refugees pouring across its border" in what way?
 
2012-08-01 12:10:27 PM

qorkfiend:

What in the name of fark are you talking about


Read the article.
 
2012-08-01 12:11:11 PM
qorkfiend:
What in the name of fark are you talking about

Let me translate for you:

"Somebody! Anybody! Pay attention to me!!!!!! Look!!! I'm posting outrageous things on the internet!!!!"
 
2012-08-01 12:11:47 PM
And this qualifies as "shiatting on us" and not "standard geopolitical horse-trading" or "trying to head off massive humanitarian crisis" or "the last thing China wants is a horde of North Korean refugees pouring across its border" in what way?

So if we threatened to nuke Toronto if Canada didn't reduce their tarrifs for.. whatever.. you'd consider that "standard geopolitical horse-trading" ?
 
2012-08-01 12:12:59 PM

Jim_Callahan: Iran as a nation is actually pretty cool, the population is pretty secular and actually quite educated, and it's been doing its best to modernize. A lot of our scientists come from there-- not a huge number since it's not a really big nation, but quite a few.

The problem is that the national government of Iran is none of those things. They were talked into nuclear power, something that's just eminently sensible for a nation in their situation, because of the potential to make weapons. That is to say, they have the worst ass-backwards priorities of even any theocrats we know.

Reading Lolita in Tehran

was very sad reading for the depiction of ordinary people's lives, as well as a huge object lesson in what happens when you let religious fundamentalists of whatever stripe run the government.
 
2012-08-01 12:17:20 PM

qorkfiend: malaktaus: qorkfiend: malaktaus: Meanwhile North Korea shiats on us regularly

How does North Korea "shiat on us regularly"?

By threatening us and our allies with war over the slightest provocation, or over nothing at all? By essentially forcing us to give them food, with the implicit threat of nuclear holocaust in Seoul if we refuse, meanwhile spending every last cent they have on the military?

And this qualifies as "shiatting on us" and not "standard geopolitical horse-trading" or "trying to head off massive humanitarian crisis" or "the last thing China wants is a horde of North Korean refugees pouring across its border" in what way?


It is some of those things as well, but "standard geopolitical horse-trading?" Not sure how things work on your planet, but no, there is nothing standard about it. And as for the rest, no, that isn't an excuse, because the humanitarian crisis was self-created and totally avoidable, and it remains a possibility specifically because they are so bellicose. If Best Korea was a state with an army instead of the other way around this would not be an issue.
 
2012-08-01 12:27:27 PM

duffman13: Valid points. I just don't trust a stable transition and security of those weapons when Asad eventually does fall. It'll most likely end up a clusterfark on par with 2006 Iraq, and god know where those weapons would end up.

I wouldn't be opposed to the US unilaterally putting some teams in to secure known sites and destroy or take any CBW they find. Then leave and let the Syrians sort it out themselves. Israel has already stated publicly they're going to blow the hell out of every CBW site they know if they ahve any indications that Hezbollah has gotten control of the facilities.

The thing to recognize too is that this is *not* Iraq. The fact that Asad has CBW is well known and monitored by us, Israel, etc. I'll bet money we have a good idea where 90% of the stuff is as well. We don't have to stay to fix it either, because unlike Iraq we did not break it, and we're just doing a sweep&clear operation to prevent CBW from falling into terrorist hands in a failed state.


I'd be fine with Israel moving unilaterally to take out those sites. Much more fine with that than us moving in and securing them. Israel can take the political hit, their population would be much more accepting than America's. If we toss in more troops into ANOTHER country, no matter the reason, the public would be howling and politicians pontificating. Remember how much flak Obama took both before and after Libya? It will be 10 times worse.

I just don't see America intervening, or wanting to intervene. If they did, they should be making the case for securing CBW now, bring up that point and hammer it repeatedly on the world stage so people will maybe pay a little more attention to Syria.

Lord knows we can, I hear the reports out of Syria and it breaks my heart. They plead for help, they're getting killed out there and we say: "Sorry, don't you understand geopolitics? China and Russia won't budge, and we don't have enough political capital....should have realized that before your uprising, bro"
 
2012-08-01 12:32:08 PM

phreezen: qorkfiend:

What in the name of fark are you talking about

Read the article.


Antiwar.com is the biggest pro-war site on the internet.
 
2012-08-01 12:35:02 PM

sprawl15: phreezen: qorkfiend:

What in the name of fark are you talking about

Read the article.

Antiwar.com is the biggest pro-war site on the internet.


I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
 
2012-08-01 12:37:06 PM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not the basis of a functional foreign policy.
 
2012-08-01 12:51:58 PM

qorkfiend: Short answer: no.

Long answer:
[mysteryworlds.files.wordpress.com image 540x650]


Well done.
 
2012-08-01 01:00:48 PM
Republicans already tried that. It did not end well.
 
2012-08-01 01:04:57 PM

phreezen: EyeballKid: phreezen: It's so nice to see the left so PRO-WAR.

Account created:

2012-06-29 21:02:11


WELCOME back TO FARK

You have got to laugh at the left who post Regan pics and favor War. The smugness and hypocrisy of the left is simply delightful.


Yawn. Back in the day trolling meant something.
 
2012-08-01 01:14:30 PM

phreezen: The smugness and hypocrisy of the left


Don't forget the sneering!
 
2012-08-01 01:42:51 PM

urban.derelict: Mugato: Cheney's a war criminal but you're not helping with the truther shiat.

and you're a f*cking moron in denial; you can't possibly believe our own gov would do something so heinous. Google MK Ultra

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html


Stop being a goalpost-moving, strawman-burning asshole, asshole. Argue your actual point or go fark your dishonest, schizoid self.
 
2012-08-01 02:03:06 PM
Hillary Clinton is a neo-con? That's the first time I've heard her called that, but she is acting and sounding a lot like a neo-con.
 
2012-08-01 02:06:38 PM
Wow, that was an impressive, hard hitting, no holds barred indictment of our recent warmongering policy in Syria. This as compared to Bashar al-Assad's government's recent peacemongering policy in Syria.
 
2012-08-01 02:39:41 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: phreezen: The smugness and hypocrisy of the left

Don't forget the sneering!


Good point! It's what we do when we see a REAL AMERICAN working hard as we pass by in our Volvos on the way to a chardonnay-and-jacuzzi party. Phreezen sure has our number!
 
2012-08-01 02:42:19 PM
DEAR NUMBNUTS: ATTACKS AGAINST MILITARY TARGETS DURING A CIVIL WAR ARE NOT "TERRORIST ATTACKS."

/just had to get that off my chest
/seriously, fark these assholes with their lying, word-twisting media manipulation
 
2012-08-01 03:24:11 PM

sprawl15: Why not? It worked for Reagan.


Not if the enemy of my enemy is my enemy. I think we'd be better off leaving this pair to fight each other without us sticking our noses in.
 
2012-08-01 09:27:09 PM

Esc7: But i'd like to reiterate:
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.


The codex of Sgt. Schlock, Mercenary?
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report