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.

(Reuters)   Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone   (reuters.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Syrians, Free Syrian Army, clandestine operations, Qatari, United Nations Security Council, Syrian opposition, Assad, Damascus  
•       •       •

12111 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2012 at 12:26 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-02 12:27:52 AM  
Chanty
 
2012-08-02 12:29:32 AM  
What's the first rule of Syria Overthrow Club?
 
2012-08-02 12:30:37 AM  
Obama's order, approved earlier this year

As the rebels have been putting up a good fight recently..
 
2012-08-02 12:30:40 AM  
God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".
 
2012-08-02 12:32:10 AM  
Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...
 
2012-08-02 12:35:48 AM  
This shiat never ends well
 
2012-08-02 12:36:57 AM  
Imagine what those plucky Al-Qaida fighters will be able to do with the U.S. on their team again.

/We're gettin' the Taliband back together!
 
2012-08-02 12:37:17 AM  

Loucifer: What's the first rule of Syria Overthrow Club?


His name is Bashar al-Assad Paulson.
 
2012-08-02 12:38:18 AM  

jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...


Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.
 
2012-08-02 12:38:32 AM  
Apparently, Mitt Romney was briefed.
 
2012-08-02 12:39:09 AM  
This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...
 
2012-08-02 12:40:38 AM  
Misleading news headline is misleading.
 
2012-08-02 12:40:57 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".


Better than those Symbian Rebels. *cough *GD*
 
2012-08-02 12:42:12 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".


...and I read that in Vegeta's voice.

Congratulations, I think we can wrap this thread up now.

/might vote for Romney if he picks Nappa as his VP
 
2012-08-02 12:44:32 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...

Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.


They'd sell their mother to a pimp if it meant a few extra dollars.
 
2012-08-02 12:50:41 AM  

TheGogmagog: Better than those Symbian Rebels.


upload.wikimedia.org

/ Old
 
2012-08-02 12:56:39 AM  

jaytkay: TheGogmagog: Better than those Symbian Rebels.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x286]

/ Old


Too bad one of Rupert Murdoch's grand kids don't go all radical left wing .
 
2012-08-02 12:56:40 AM  

fineartamerica.com

 
2012-08-02 12:58:18 AM  

cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.


Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.
 
2012-08-02 01:01:37 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...

Why not? They'd sell They have already sold weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.

 
2012-08-02 01:02:02 AM  
This just in, the CIA can pretty do whatever they damn well please. Film at 11
 
2012-08-02 01:02:17 AM  

TheGogmagog: Sergeant Grumbles: God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".

Better than those Symbian Rebels. *cough *GD*


If you're invoking Grables Daughter wouldn't it be better to have her ride in with the Sybian rebels?
 
2012-08-02 01:03:02 AM  

Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.


You sound concerned, and butthurt.
 
2012-08-02 01:03:51 AM  

Gyrfalcon: SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...

Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.

They'd sell their mother to a pimp if it meant a few extra dollars.


images.sodahead.com
 
2012-08-02 01:04:38 AM  
If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!
 
2012-08-02 01:05:58 AM  

MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.


You can hear me?
 
2012-08-02 01:10:06 AM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...


Plant. This makes the third? fourth? high level security story planted in the last for months...

We can rest easy because we now know he is doing something about Syria.
 
2012-08-02 01:15:52 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!


Oh, did you miss when Obama warned about them last week?
 
2012-08-02 01:18:03 AM  

Team Coors Light: MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.

You can hear me?


We would try to explain to you what a "figure of speech" is, but that would really just be a waste of time since I doubt you'd get it.
 
2012-08-02 01:21:09 AM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...


When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.
 
2012-08-02 01:24:08 AM  
Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.
 
2012-08-02 01:25:07 AM  

iawai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...

When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.


Really? Transparency in National Security issues? What kind of a moron are you?

/Seriously, I want to know what kind so I can avoid that kind.
 
2012-08-02 01:26:23 AM  
Republicans are now apparently all about everything being aired and no national security issues should be secret. I guess they really DO hate Reagan.
 
2012-08-02 01:26:28 AM  
So...just another one of those things that pretty much everyone besides al-Assad himself would approve of if not for Obama Derangement Syndrome?

Got it.

/off to the next thread
 
2012-08-02 01:27:11 AM  

Triumph: Bigdogdaddy: If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!

Oh, did you miss when Obama warned about them last week?


Perhaps he did...but I did not...

...but what is a "warning" from a liberal president, when delivered through a foreign news service really worth. Granted, the BBC is the best news services on this rock, and yes, I know that similar stories were pronounced through the 'Merican media...but it does not really mean much until "something else" happens.

Dropping in spies is great and all, but make a GD decision. Light it up, or let it go. We spend too much time watching the stories and causalities' bodies on T.V...and then argue about what "we" should do.

Just make a fu$king decision.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:25 AM  

Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.


Nope. That would make him look strong just before the election. Right or wrong, strong.

She wouldn't do that. At least not on purpose.
 
2012-08-02 01:28:13 AM  

dookdookdook: So...just another one of those things that pretty much everyone besides al-Assad himself would approve of if not for Obama Derangement Syndrome?

Got it.

/off to the next thread


Republicans love Mubarek, bin Laden, Assad, and Ghadaffi.

/It is amazing the corners they paint themselves into.
 
2012-08-02 01:28:35 AM  

Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.

You can hear me?

We would try to explain to you what a "figure of speech" is, but that would really just be a waste of time since I doubt you'd get it.


Really...your mom. How about that. Your mom.

/grow up
 
2012-08-02 01:29:04 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Nope. That would make him look strong just before the election. Right or wrong, strong.

She wouldn't do that. At least not on purpose.


She isn't that bright.
 
2012-08-02 01:30:47 AM  

Team Coors Light: Triumph: Bigdogdaddy: If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!

Oh, did you miss when Obama warned about them last week?

Perhaps he did...but I did not...

...but what is a "warning" from a liberal president, when delivered through a foreign news service really worth. Granted, the BBC is the best news services on this rock, and yes, I know that similar stories were pronounced through the 'Merican media...but it does not really mean much until "something else" happens.

Dropping in spies is great and all, but make a GD decision. Light it up, or let it go. We spend too much time watching the stories and causalities' bodies on T.V...and then argue about what "we" should do.

Just make a fu$king decision.


Are you farking serious? Do you believe you know everything that is going on, including what the intelligence services are doing? I think we should elect motherfarking Team Coors Light.
 
2012-08-02 01:31:14 AM  

Team Coors Light: Triumph: Bigdogdaddy: If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!

Oh, did you miss when Obama warned about them last week?

Perhaps he did...but I did not...

...but what is a "warning" from a liberal president, when delivered through a foreign news service really worth. Granted, the BBC is the best news services on this rock, and yes, I know that similar stories were pronounced through the 'Merican media...but it does not really mean much until "something else" happens.

Dropping in spies is great and all, but make a GD decision. Light it up, or let it go. We spend too much time watching the stories and causalities' bodies on T.V...and then argue about what "we" should do.

Just make a fu$king decision.


www.black-and-right.com
 
2012-08-02 01:36:34 AM  

Sabyen91: Republicans love ... bin Laden


To be fair to the Republicans, Reagan (PBUH) did suggest he was the moral equivalent of George Washington, and due to their tendency to support the Holy President in lockstep, they are forced to love Bin Laden.
 
2012-08-02 01:37:45 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Sabyen91: Republicans love ... bin Laden

To be fair to the Republicans, Reagan (PBUH) did suggest he was the moral equivalent of George Washington, and due to their tendency to support the Holy President in lockstep, they are forced to love Bin Laden.


Your post was number 42 so I believe it is the answer to the question of the universe.
 
2012-08-02 01:38:50 AM  

Team Coors Light: Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.

You can hear me?

We would try to explain to you what a "figure of speech" is, but that would really just be a waste of time since I doubt you'd get it.

Really...your mom. How about that. Your mom.

/grow up


I always love it when someone on Fark goes for a "your mom" insult followed by "grow up." It's one of the more entertaining forms of "No, YOU!"
 
2012-08-02 01:40:33 AM  

Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.


Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. This comes out while she's doing McCarthy 2: Muslim Boogaloo, and the Republican party is in desperate need of a popularity boost? (or at least for Obama's popularity to dip below theirs)? This seems like the kind of thing a crazy, desperate person would pull.
 
2012-08-02 01:40:42 AM  

jaytkay: TheGogmagog: Better than those Symbian Rebels.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x286]

/ Old


Oh, my beloved Tania
How I long to see your face
Photographed in fifteen second intervals
In a bank in San Leandro
A Polaroid of you, Cinque
With a seven-headed dragon
In a house in Daly City

cvb
 
2012-08-02 01:41:10 AM  

Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.

You can hear me?

We would try to explain to you what a "figure of speech" is, but that would really just be a waste of time since I doubt you'd get it.

Really...your mom. How about that. Your mom.

/grow up

I always love it when someone on Fark goes for a "your mom" insult followed by "grow up." It's one of the more entertaining forms of "No, YOU!"


Your mom is so fat that I hope she can find the willpower to stick to a diet and lose the weight before it affects her heart.

/Grow up. :)
 
2012-08-02 01:42:12 AM  

LordJiro: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. This comes out while she's doing McCarthy 2: Muslim Boogaloo, and the Republican party is in desperate need of a popularity boost? (or at least for Obama's popularity to dip below theirs)? This seems like the kind of thing a crazy, desperate person would pull.


I hope she isn't expecting conjugal visits. Marcus is going to go nuts for nuts.
 
2012-08-02 01:44:01 AM  

Sabyen91: Team Coors Light: Triumph: Bigdogdaddy: If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!

Oh, did you miss when Obama warned about them last week?

Perhaps he did...but I did not...

...but what is a "warning" from a liberal president, when delivered through a foreign news service really worth. Granted, the BBC is the best news services on this rock, and yes, I know that similar stories were pronounced through the 'Merican media...but it does not really mean much until "something else" happens.

Dropping in spies is great and all, but make a GD decision. Light it up, or let it go. We spend too much time watching the stories and causalities' bodies on T.V...and then argue about what "we" should do.

Just make a fu$king decision.

Are you farking serious? Do you believe you know everything that is going on, including what the intelligence services are doing? I think we should elect motherfarking Team Coors Light.



Do you know everything? Do you have the Intel? Are you Kaiser Soyze?

My point, which you do not get, is "let's get on with it"...blow them up, or leave them be. I, personally, am tired of the stories and speculation regarding Syria...and I could care less either way.

If your President truely cared about the "people" of Syria, a particular decision would have been made by now....but it is important for you to know that the "president" doesn't make the decisions...

...and your mom...not your mom, but your mom.

/fark off
 
2012-08-02 01:46:17 AM  

Team Coors Light: Do you know everything? Do you have the Intel? Are you Kaiser Soyze?


And that is exactly why your last post was Down's Syndrome stupid.
 
2012-08-02 01:46:50 AM  

Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.

You can hear me?

We would try to explain to you what a "figure of speech" is, but that would really just be a waste of time since I doubt you'd get it.

Really...your mom. How about that. Your mom.

/grow up

I always love it when someone on Fark goes for a "your mom" insult followed by "grow up." It's one of the more entertaining forms of "No, YOU!"


Soooo....did you have some sort of meaningful counter-point to include anywhere...somewhere?

Just curious...
 
2012-08-02 01:48:08 AM  

Team Coors Light: If your President truely cared about the "people" of Syria, a particular decision would have been made by now


Really. That's the one consideration? Necessary and sufficient?
 
2012-08-02 01:48:50 AM  

Team Coors Light: Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: Teufelaffe: Team Coors Light: MFAWG: Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

You sound concerned, and butthurt.

You can hear me?

We would try to explain to you what a "figure of speech" is, but that would really just be a waste of time since I doubt you'd get it.

Really...your mom. How about that. Your mom.

/grow up

I always love it when someone on Fark goes for a "your mom" insult followed by "grow up." It's one of the more entertaining forms of "No, YOU!"

Soooo....did you have some sort of meaningful counter-point to include anywhere...somewhere?

Just curious...


Counterpoint to what? You didn't say anything that deserved a "counter-point". He would be an idiot to take you seriously. Especially since you appear to be an election-time troll.
 
2012-08-02 01:50:58 AM  

Team Coors Light: Soooo....did you have some sort of meaningful counter-point to include anywhere...somewhere?

Just curious...


Pfft, of course not. I don't know nearly enough about the situation in Syria to even have an opinion, much less post one.
 
2012-08-02 01:51:58 AM  

LordJiro: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. This comes out while she's doing McCarthy 2: Muslim Boogaloo, and the Republican party is in desperate need of a popularity boost? (or at least for Obama's popularity to dip below theirs)? This seems like the kind of thing a crazy, desperate person would pull.


Republicans certainly could be trying to embarrass Obama. It does put Obama in the awkward position of having to explain why the CIA is again backing Al Qaeda fighters, who could conceivably get their hands on nerve gas or whatever Assad's got. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that no U.S. media sitting in the White House briefing room even brings Al Qaeda up when the Syria questions fly.
 
2012-08-02 01:52:15 AM  
Yeah, the providing non-lethal support ain't really news. The command center in Turkey is new to me, I suppose, but not surprising either. If we armed the rebels, and what resulted from the rubble attacked the US after Assad was overthrown, well... that would suck. Or, you know, those who 'won' could turn and attack the warring factions in their formerly one-goal-minded ranks with something like this:

disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com

This is the best of a bad situation. Sucks but true. The Syrian ex-pats and the now thoroughly pissed off Turks are stepping up. When and-I-don't-mean-if Assad's human rights violations become impossible to ignore, the US giving more support *with* a coalition who have all thrown in their support both morally and with money I think will become more likely.

But... yeah.

And douchebag anything-Obama-does-sucks twits, the world is a complicated place. And Bush never did much to help the people of North Korea even after meeting with the author of Aquariums of Pyongyang, did he? And they were 1/3rd of the AXIS OF MOTHERF--KING EVIL!. This isn't a right vs wrong thing, this is a 'hold off lethal weapon support, but help out in any other way possible be it communications or tactical via Turkey". That's different. Christ.
 
2012-08-02 01:53:12 AM  

Team Coors Light: It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears

...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK


Team Coors Light: grow up


Physician, heal thyself.

Oh, and it's laughable that you think that the only 2 options a President has in dealing with a country are "blow them up" or "ignore them".
 
2012-08-02 01:54:28 AM  
Oh wait you mean they might actually win? Obama can now swoop in to offer them support so he can once again take credit for something he doesn't deserve.
 
2012-08-02 01:57:19 AM  

Triumph: LordJiro: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. This comes out while she's doing McCarthy 2: Muslim Boogaloo, and the Republican party is in desperate need of a popularity boost? (or at least for Obama's popularity to dip below theirs)? This seems like the kind of thing a crazy, desperate person would pull.

Republicans certainly could be trying to embarrass Obama. It does put Obama in the awkward position of having to explain why the CIA is again backing Al Qaeda fighters, who could conceivably get their hands on nerve gas or whatever Assad's got. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that no U.S. media sitting in the White House briefing room even brings Al Qaeda up when the Syria questions fly.


Maybe that's why it's taken so long to make a decision, compared to how quickly we went into Libya? A LOT of risk/reward analysis going on.
 
2012-08-02 01:57:26 AM  

Teufelaffe:
I always love it when someone on Fark goes for a "your mom" insult followed by "grow up." It's one of the more entertaining forms of "No, YOU!"


My balls. How about that. My balls.

/stay gold, Ponyboy
 
2012-08-02 02:02:39 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Oh, and it's laughable that you think that the only 2 options a President has in dealing with a country are "blow them up" or "ignore them".


I've spoken at some length, two different times, with a State Department Diplomat recruiter / foreign service officer iirc (who was still serving, and had served as our representative in some godawful places). Talking to him was incredibly illuminating about how much a goddamn tightrope walk diplomacy is, and with essentially lava pits and sharks both waiting for you on the bottom should you fall to one side or the other. I might take the Foreign Service Officer Test at some point still, but at its most complex the weight of what is on your shoulders... [low whistle]. And he wasn't POTUS for f--k's sake, just a Representative.

But like I said, the world is not black and white.
 
2012-08-02 02:05:02 AM  
secret support for secret muslins
 
2012-08-02 02:06:23 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Nope. That would make him look strong just before the election. Right or wrong, strong.

She wouldn't do that. At least not on purpose.


Stop injecting logic into Sabyen's baseless hate filled conjecture!
 
2012-08-02 02:06:48 AM  

randomjsa: Oh wait you mean they might actually win? Obama can now swoop in to offer them support so he can once again take credit for something he doesn't deserve.


Funny, I don't remember him taking credit for Egypt.

But if you go into it assuming that, well, you can bend quotes to whatever you want. Not Officially From The Obama Administration (a "Democratic Official" is cited)



Great news for the administration/president. People will remember , despite some fumbles yesterday, that the President played an excellent hand, walked the right line and that his statement last night was potentially decisive in bringing this issue to a close. The situation remains complicated and delicate going forward, but this is a huge affirmation of the President's leadership on the international stage.


Not the best thing, true. But also not the official administration line either.



THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place. This is one of those moments. This is one of those times. The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.


Yes, totally the equivalent of this:

impiousdigest.com
 
2012-08-02 02:08:43 AM  

I sound fat: Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Nope. That would make him look strong just before the election. Right or wrong, strong.

She wouldn't do that. At least not on purpose.

Stop injecting logic into Sabyen's baseless hate filled conjecture!


Are you serious? Lenny was being sarcastic.
 
2012-08-02 02:13:47 AM  
Sorry, could you repeat the article with the lat and long coordinates of the bases mentioned? Just, y'know. For posterity. And also, hand the Syrian opposition another big piece of ammo that they can use in propaganda?

/ the fark?
 
2012-08-02 02:15:00 AM  
Oh good, a new one.
 
2012-08-02 02:21:21 AM  
With that many intricate details, my guess is that this was probably a fake leak meant to flush out the leaker.
 
2012-08-02 02:26:42 AM  

iawai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...

When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.


When Obama said "Ogden memo," he really meant "Cole memo."
 
2012-08-02 02:35:15 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay:
Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.


www.seniorreligion.com

Approves.
 
2012-08-02 02:41:13 AM  

Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.

It's okay though...all you lefties can make Fight Club jokes all you want...If it was a "Republican" in Office and the same article came out, you would all be crying your liberal, butt-hurt tears.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point, but in typical FARK fashion, you clowns make jokes about something that, if under the "other party" you would scream at the clouds about instead.

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.


Yeah, us libs always love murderous dictators. You sure got us pegged.
 
2012-08-02 02:48:49 AM  

Sabyen91: I sound fat: Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Nope. That would make him look strong just before the election. Right or wrong, strong.

She wouldn't do that. At least not on purpose.

Stop injecting logic into Sabyen's baseless hate filled conjecture!

Are you serious? Lenny was being sarcastic.


Not completely. She's a dolt, but she has handlers and GOP peers. She wouldn't do this on her own, unless she didn't stop to think of the election. But she is a dolt.
 
2012-08-02 02:50:39 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: I sound fat: Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: Hmm, I wonder who on the Intelligence Committee would leak this.

/Bachmann is going to end up in Leavenworth.

Nope. That would make him look strong just before the election. Right or wrong, strong.

She wouldn't do that. At least not on purpose.

Stop injecting logic into Sabyen's baseless hate filled conjecture!

Are you serious? Lenny was being sarcastic.

Not completely. She's a dolt, but she has handlers and GOP peers. She wouldn't do this on her own, unless she didn't stop to think of the election. But she is a dolt.


Well, you're "at least on purpose" was certainly a...wait, no, that isn't a joke at all. *sigh*
 
2012-08-02 03:14:15 AM  

Sabyen91: Well, you're "at least on purpose" was certainly a...wait, no, that isn't a joke at all. *sigh*


Yeah. *sigh*
 
2012-08-02 03:16:20 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Sabyen91: Well, you're "at least on purpose" was certainly a...wait, no, that isn't a joke at all. *sigh*

Yeah. *sigh*


Oh, and I you'red instead of your'ed. whoops.
 
2012-08-02 03:27:31 AM  
War is the USA main export, it was before Obama, during and is going to be long after him.
 
2012-08-02 03:58:02 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Sabyen91: Republicans love ... bin Laden

To be fair to the Republicans, Reagan (PBUH) did suggest he was the moral equivalent of George Washington, and due to their tendency to support the Holy President in lockstep, they are forced to love Bin Laden.


Shiat, they've been doing that since Obama had him murdered and they were all about how wrong it was we killed him and how he should have been brought here for a fair trial. This after we spent years and a whole war to find him and, you know, kill him.
 
2012-08-02 04:45:02 AM  
GOP outrage in 4...3...2...
 
2012-08-02 04:56:30 AM  

randomjsa: Oh wait you mean they might actually win? Obama can now swoop in to offer them support so he can once again take credit for something he doesn't deserve.


Your bum sounds like it is bothering you. I'm sure you can find ointment for that. What would you have have Obama do exactly anyways? It is an extremely volatile situation with potential for sectarian conflict and ethnic cleansing, among other geo-political ramifications like massive numbers of refugees and the de-stabilization of the entire region. Assad is a brutal tyrant who is now a war-criminal but the rebels have indicated that the Alawites are going to face terrible consequences for what he has done, once he is gone. You don't seem to have any idea of what is going on there (nor do I really, for that matter) so you should probably stick to threads about where the microfilm of Obama's birth certificate is.
 
2012-08-02 05:14:32 AM  
I wonder what would it be like if a swarm of 600 or so US drones flew in from the sea and launched a number of high-accuracy airstrikes at planes, helicopters, artillery, radar and communications centers .... and then simply turned around and left.
 
2012-08-02 05:16:17 AM  
Ya know, at the end of WW2 we hanged a bunch of Germans and Japanese for acts of aggression. Remember when there was a big list of differences between the good guys and the bad guys? Now, we don't even pretend to be better, we just claim better motives for doing the same old things.
 
2012-08-02 05:18:40 AM  
www.titaniumteddybear.net

It never ceases to amaze me how the West has no farking clue about Middle-Eastern mentality.
 
2012-08-02 05:21:55 AM  
Took us long enough. Not that I'm happy with it though. Maybe the new regime won't be so friendly to Iran, and friendlier to us.

//Guessing that's what finally pushed them to aid.
 
2012-08-02 05:26:47 AM  

iawai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...

When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.


Actually, I'm sure that on Day One the CIA sat Obama down and told him how it was going to be.
 
2012-08-02 05:35:01 AM  
I AM The President Link
 
2012-08-02 05:45:51 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".


Support is over 9000!
 
2012-08-02 06:14:07 AM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com

TappingTheVein: www.titaniumteddybear.net

It never ceases to amaze me how the West has no farking clue about Middle-Eastern mentality.


Thanks it's very refreshing against the rampant derptitude of the masses.

/lh3.googleusercontent.com
//once again i am genius
 
2012-08-02 06:15:53 AM  

DrPainMD: Actually, I'm sure that on Day One the CIA sat Obama down and told him how it was going to be.


so.much.this.
 
2012-08-02 06:19:44 AM  
---Team Coors Light:--- ...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

/i'm at a loss for words, when did this become a party issue?
 
2012-08-02 06:26:37 AM  
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.



Its almost as if he didn't want anyone to know.
...and they still don't know.

/That's some fine reportin there, Mark.
 
2012-08-02 06:57:00 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...

Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.


No need for that. Obama has already let the go nuclear, a few rifles aren't going to make much difference.

And this is just another attempt by Obama to create a tough guy image, just in time for the election.
 
2012-08-02 06:58:34 AM  

Gyrfalcon: SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...

Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.

They'd sell their mother to a pimp if it meant a few extra dollars.


Why do you hate the free market?
 
2012-08-02 07:01:47 AM  
This thread is another stellar example of why I'm glad our military and foreign policy is not directly controlled by the populace.
 
2012-08-02 07:09:35 AM  

randomjsa: Oh wait you mean they might actually win? Obama can now swoop in to offer them support so he can once again take credit for something he doesn't deserve.


oh, muffin.
 
2012-08-02 07:11:23 AM  
So he's Dictatorbama again this week. Empty suit apologist must be next week, I lose track sometimes.
 
2012-08-02 07:13:52 AM  
Listen to all you Neocon hipsters:

"I wanted to foster regime change in Syria before it was cool!"

So lame.
 
2012-08-02 07:22:58 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".


The State Department said on Wednesday the U.S. government had set aside a total of over $9000 million for "non-lethal" assistance to the Syrian opposition.
 
2012-08-02 07:25:23 AM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...


Don't leak the information: Republicans scream that we're not doing enough to help Syria.
Leak the information: Republicans scream that we're leaking information.
 
2012-08-02 07:27:25 AM  

The Bestest: This thread is another stellar example of why I'm glad our military and foreign policy is not directly controlled by the populaceGOP.


Could you imagine the cluster fark we'd be in right now if those small dick chicken hawks were still in power?
 
2012-08-02 07:28:01 AM  

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


/I blame rmoney
 
2012-08-02 07:28:18 AM  

shotglasss: And this is just another attempt by Obama to create a tough guy image, just in time for the election.


upload.wikimedia.org
"Well, I'm convinced."

www.sadanduseless.com
"Ditto."
 
2012-08-02 07:29:58 AM  
... And now the GOP , which has been screaming that Obama is ignoring Syria will seamlessly switch to calling him a warmonger.

These people have no shame, no morals, and no common sense.
 
2012-08-02 07:40:13 AM  
I'd like to know how much money this is costing us. And the end game? Getting the brotherhood in there? Or is this a pregame to Iran?

Where have all the anti-war people gone?

Money!!!!
 
2012-08-02 07:42:05 AM  

keylock71: .. And now the GOP , which has been screaming that Obama is ignoring Syria will seamlessly switch to calling him a warmonger.


It's the Gingrich/Libya shuck and jive.

"We would do the opposite of Obama! What did he do today? Yes, the opposite of that. And if that changes tomorrow, we would do the opposite of whatever that is."
 
2012-08-02 07:52:12 AM  
You don't win Peace Prizes by keeping the peace
 
2012-08-02 07:54:57 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: keylock71: .. And now the GOP , which has been screaming that Obama is ignoring Syria will seamlessly switch to calling him a warmonger.

It's the Gingrich/Libya shuck and jive.

"We would do the opposite of Obama! What did he do today? Yes, the opposite of that. And if that changes tomorrow, we would do the opposite of whatever that is."


Heh... Obama just needs to come out against drinking bleach and we'll probably raise the collective IQ of the country in a few minutes.

"0bama doesn't want me to drink bleach!!!!! Goddamn Socialists ain't gonna tell me what to do!!!!"

*Chug*

*Thud*
 
2012-08-02 07:56:15 AM  
The problem is that if you start with the assumption that Obama can't do anything right you'll never be able to understand why he makes the choices he makes.

I've said this before, Obama has a devious Syria strategy. He's been keeping us out of the limelight, so that Assad can't use our involvement to rally support. At the same time, we've had people on the ground building relationships, advising, and feeding equipment to key groups (and figuring out who's who in the opposition).

The fact that this has finally come out publicly is deliberate, and it's not for the benefit of Obama's electoral reputation. It's a sign that they think Assad is almost gone. This way, as Assad falls from power, we'll be able to remind the Syrians that the US has been helping them continuously for the past year.
 
2012-08-02 07:56:33 AM  
dont-tread-on.me

Jack Ryan: I didn't sign up for this. This is someone's bullshiat political agenda. Who authorized this? Cutter?
Ritter: Cutter couldn't tie his own shoes without permission.
Jack Ryan: If I go down you're coming with me.
Ritter: Wrong again. I have an *autographed get-out-of-jail-free card*! "The President of the United States authorizes Deputy Director of the CIA Robert Ritter to conduct 'Operation Reciprocity' including all necessary funding and support. This action is deemed important to the national security of the United States etcetera, etcetera, etcetera." You don't *have* one of these, do you Jack?
[as Ryan walks away]
Ritter: Gray! The world is gray, Jack!
 
2012-08-02 08:00:07 AM  

keylock71: HotWingConspiracy: keylock71: .. And now the GOP , which has been screaming that Obama is ignoring Syria will seamlessly switch to calling him a warmonger.

It's the Gingrich/Libya shuck and jive.

"We would do the opposite of Obama! What did he do today? Yes, the opposite of that. And if that changes tomorrow, we would do the opposite of whatever that is."

Heh... Obama just needs to come out against drinking bleach and we'll probably raise the collective IQ of the country in a few minutes.

"0bama doesn't want me to drink bleach!!!!! Goddamn Socialists ain't gonna tell me what to do!!!!"

*Chug*

*Thud*


Wait, let me establish a Christian bleach factory first. I want to be prepped to profit when the president suggests we boycott drinking it.
 
2012-08-02 08:05:52 AM  

keylock71: ... And now the GOP , which has been screaming that Obama is ignoring Syria will seamlessly switch to calling him a warmonger.

These people have no shame, no morals, and no common sense.


And they constantly get away with it.
 
2012-08-02 08:09:52 AM  

Onkel Buck: You don't win Peace Prizes by keeping the peace


What peace are you talking about? This thread is about Syria, right?
 
2012-08-02 08:12:28 AM  
I love it when news gets posted here before Limbaugh has a chance to tell his listeners what to think about it.
 
2012-08-02 08:15:41 AM  

Team Coors Light: cc_rider: Misleading news headline is misleading.

Eh...not really.



I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the "actions taken" to this point


ok great, I'll put you down for 'has no opinion'...super

...but who are we kidding here...the thousands of people killed there thus far make no difference to you...as long as you can FARK.

right, while all those GOPers are out there protesting against war again...jeeez give it a rest hippies freedom isn't free.
 
2012-08-02 08:19:47 AM  
Gee I'm so surprised obama is looking out for people in another country. That's totally unexpected after he decided to legalize a million illegal immigrants.
 
2012-08-02 08:25:27 AM  

Bob16: That's totally unexpected after he decided to legalize a million illegal immigrants.


When did that happen?
 
2012-08-02 08:26:47 AM  

Skleenar: Onkel Buck: You don't win Peace Prizes by keeping the peace

What peace are you talking about? This thread is about Syria, right?


Looks peaceful and friendly to me
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-02 08:26:55 AM  
I'm glad Obama is keeping us out of wars that are not in our interest, just like he promised in 2008.

Go Hopey McChange!
 
2012-08-02 08:29:37 AM  
So after 30+ years of lectures about the US involving themselves in civil wars in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Nicaragua and El Salvador, in Iran, etc, etc. Now it's a good idea?

No consequences of these actions in Libya and now Syria?

Will President Malia Obama in 30 years will be giving a speach in Egypt apologizing for our past like her father did?
 
2012-08-02 08:33:02 AM  

LewDux: Skleenar: Onkel Buck: You don't win Peace Prizes by keeping the peace

What peace are you talking about? This thread is about Syria, right?

Looks peaceful and friendly to me
[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x302]


Who's the hottie with Balki?
 
2012-08-02 08:33:06 AM  

MugzyBrown: Will President Malia Obama in 30 years will be giving a speach in Egypt apologizing for our past like her father did?


Barack Obama's father had something to do with Hosni Mubarak?
 
2012-08-02 08:33:40 AM  

beta_plus: I'm glad Obama is keeping us out of wars that are not in our interest, just like he promised in 2008.

Go Hopey McChange!


your comment would make sense if Obama was putting troops in Syria for regime change.
but he's not, and I'm glad.

aid to native rebels, and tactical drone strikes are a much better way to handle our troubles in the ME than full on government take overs wouldn't you say?

go ahead guy, tell us all what Obama should be doing...
 
2012-08-02 08:34:48 AM  

EyeballKid: Barack Obama's father had something to do with Hosni Mubarak?


Do you need me to diagram the sentence for you?

That would be apologizing for her father, not apologizing for our past
 
2012-08-02 08:35:12 AM  
Patience, my dear conservatives.

Limbaugh will tell you what to think in just a few hours. I suggest you wait until then and get your argument together.

You're just confusing us now.
 
2012-08-02 08:35:45 AM  

MugzyBrown: So after 30+ years of lectures about the US involving themselves in civil wars in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Nicaragua and El Salvador, in Iran, etc, etc. Now it's a good idea?

No consequences of these actions in Libya and now Syria?

Will President Malia Obama in 30 years will be giving a speach in Egypt apologizing for our past like her father did?


I'll put you down for, 'Do nothing about Syria'...got it.
 
2012-08-02 08:36:15 AM  

unexplained bacon: your comment would make sense if Obama was putting troops in Syria for regime change.
but he's not, and I'm glad.

aid to native rebels, and tactical drone strikes are a much better way to handle our troubles in the ME than full on government take overs wouldn't you say?


So you would support the use of US drones to strike targets in China?

Why is it more acceptable to help overthrow a government if you don't use ground troops?
 
2012-08-02 08:38:26 AM  

unexplained bacon: I'll put you down for, 'Do nothing about Syria'...got it.


Why should the US do something about Syria?
 
2012-08-02 08:43:13 AM  

MugzyBrown: unexplained bacon: I'll put you down for, 'Do nothing about Syria'...got it.

Why should the US do something about Syria?


because we think that eventually the rebels will win and we want to be on the good side of those who take power?
we want to be able to influence their direction? to be able to put in pro-Israel pro-US people in power and lessen Iran's influence?
 
2012-08-02 08:44:56 AM  

MugzyBrown: Why is it more acceptable to help overthrow a government if you don't use ground troops?


Not sure if trolling or actually retarted.
 
2012-08-02 08:45:14 AM  

MugzyBrown: unexplained bacon: your comment would make sense if Obama was putting troops in Syria for regime change.
but he's not, and I'm glad.

aid to native rebels, and tactical drone strikes are a much better way to handle our troubles in the ME than full on government take overs wouldn't you say?

So you would support the use of US drones to strike targets in China?

Why is it more acceptable to help overthrow a government if you don't use ground troops?


China? settle down

So you suggest we do nothing about Syria?
seriously, I have no doubt your objections here are purely partisan but I'd like to know what you want to see happen.
 
2012-08-02 08:48:32 AM  

randomjsa: Oh wait you mean they might actually win? Obama can now swoop in to offer them support so he can once again take credit for something he doesn't deserve.


It's not clear they'll win now. Do you believe it was MORE clear months ago when the order was signed? Or that American CIA assistance mad the rebels LESS likely to succeed?
 
2012-08-02 08:49:02 AM  

Hobodeluxe: MugzyBrown: unexplained bacon: I'll put you down for, 'Do nothing about Syria'...got it.

Why should the US do something about Syria?

because we think that eventually the rebels will win and we want to be on the good side of those who take power?
we want to be able to influence their direction? to be able to put in pro-Israel pro-US people in power and lessen Iran's influence?


^^^this

it's silly to even explain this, these guys know this. Their objections are only because it's Obama, that's it.

clearly the GOPers around here aren't a bunch of doves, they cheered on invading and occupying Iraq just a few years ago.

Now they're pretending they have a point when they whine about how Obama is helping Syrian rebels against a regime we've been at odds with for years. they're ridiculous.
 
2012-08-02 08:49:11 AM  
Non-lethal aid is just as good as lethal aid; intelligence, food/water, medicine, communications equipment - all things that are vital to any form of campaign.

In fact from a political perspective it's worth even more because we don't look like complete ass-holes (Oliver North, et al).

Obama is just the check signer in this situation. The technicians and analysts who run this show essentially just tell him what they are going to do and he just rubber stamps it.

The real story is the source of this leak.
 
2012-08-02 08:49:22 AM  
Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.
 
2012-08-02 08:51:31 AM  
So you suggest we do nothing about Syria?
seriously, I have no doubt your objections here are purely partisan but I'd like to know what you want to see happen.


I'd like to see the Syrian people figure out what they want. Who are we to decide who rules their country? What if we help the rebels and the rebels are worse than Assad? I mean there's never been atrocities committed by victorious rebels before. But that's cool because there were no American soldiers in harms way.

Wyalt Derp: Not sure if trolling or actually retarted.


You're the retard who think being involved in a war is fine as long as there are no American lives at stake.

Hobodeluxe: because we think that eventually the rebels will win and we want to be on the good side of those who take power?
we want to be able to influence their direction? to be able to put in pro-Israel pro-US people in power and lessen Iran's influence?


So you want a puppet regime in Syria. That worked well in Iran and Chile.
 
2012-08-02 08:53:21 AM  

penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.


And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.
 
2012-08-02 08:55:23 AM  

penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.


well tell us, IS the president benefiting from the defense contracts? 'cause in the case of Cheney that was an actual fact. back it up or admit there's a difference.

Aid to rebels fighting Assad isn't the same thing as invading Iraq, there's a difference.
Aid to rebels and tactical strikes is the way we should be doing things and I've been saying that for years.

this invasion/country building neocon crap was idiotic and the people crying about this were all for that. I have no respect for the opinion of someone who would cheer the iraq invasion yet cry about aid to anti-assad rebels, you've all gone mad.
 
2012-08-02 08:56:42 AM  

penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.


You poor, poor Republicans.

img24.imageshack.us

The silliness of your concern is no excuse for the fact that some LIBERAL might have done something hurtful in another reality. When will you ever get JUSTICE?
 
2012-08-02 08:58:07 AM  

beta_plus: I'm glad Obama is keeping us out of wars that are not in our interest, just like he promised in 2008.

Go Hopey McChange!


I must have missed the involvement of American armed forces in hostile actions. When did that happen?

I support Obama, but I'd be against an open war with Syria.

Not entirely against providing the rebels TD same kind of intel tools the Russians have been supplying Assad with for years though.
 
2012-08-02 08:59:30 AM  

EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.


This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.
 
2012-08-02 08:59:32 AM  
MugzyBrown:


I seriously want to know, were you in favor of invading Iraq?

I bet you were, and if so that would make your comments now look like complete partisan hackery of the highest order...and I'd be soooo surprised.
 
2012-08-02 09:00:51 AM  

MugzyBrown: You're the retard who think being involved in a war is fine as long as there are no American lives at stake.


Except that's not what I said and you know it. You're rubbish at this.
 
2012-08-02 09:01:32 AM  

penetrating_virga: This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.


Like you did, I guess. And let me surmise when that happened...was it around the same time you became a deficit hawk, say, around January 2009? Total coincidence, I'm certain.
 
2012-08-02 09:02:32 AM  

penetrating_virga: This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.


I know. Except for the part about it being one of our military conflicts.

Other than that detail, ITS EXACTLY THE SAME!
 
2012-08-02 09:03:10 AM  

EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

Like you did, I guess. And let me surmise when that happened...was it around the same time you became a deficit hawk, say, around January 2009? Total coincidence, I'm certain.


Wrong dumbass.
 
2012-08-02 09:03:44 AM  

penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.



well tell us, IS the president benefiting from the defense contracts? 'cause in the case of Cheney that was an actual fact. back it up or admit there's a difference.
 
2012-08-02 09:03:45 AM  

Hobodeluxe: MugzyBrown: unexplained bacon: I'll put you down for, 'Do nothing about Syria'...got it.

Why should the US do something about Syria?

because we think that eventually the rebels will win and we want to be on the good side of those who take power?
we want to be able to influence their direction? to be able to put in pro-Israel pro-US people in power and lessen Iran's influence?



We're just paying it forward.
 
2012-08-02 09:05:22 AM  
I seriously want to know, were you in favor of invading Iraq?

I bet you were, and if so that would make your comments now look like complete partisan hackery of the highest order...and I'd be soooo surprised.


I was in favor of invading Iraq and now realise it was stupid. There are differences here. At least we were sold our involvement was security threat to the US via chemical weapons and possible terrorism links. That was obviously fabricated, exagerated, and/or misinterpreted, depending who you ask. I voted for Bush in '00 but not in '04.

I am willing to admit something I supported was wrong. I'm sure you're willing to admit that if McCain were in office today involving us in Lybia and Syria you'd be yelling about PNAC and such.
 
2012-08-02 09:08:17 AM  

MugzyBrown: I am willing to admit something I supported was wrong. I'm sure you're willing to admit that if McCain were in office today involving us in Lybia and Syria you'd be yelling about PNAC and such.


It totally seems fair and reasonable to ask someone to admit a moral failing for doing something in an imaginary reality because you admitted to being proven incorrect in the real world.
 
2012-08-02 09:08:29 AM  
foodandthecityonlinedotcom.files.wordpress.com

I ain't gonna tell nobody else.
 
2012-08-02 09:08:39 AM  
Except that's not what I said and you know it. You're rubbish at this.

Then please explain the difference between the US putting troops on the ground with rebels to kill pro Assad forces and using a drone as CAS for rebels to kill pro Assad forces and using a spy satelite to tell rebels how to kill pro Assad forces.

They are all acts of war against pro Assad forces.
 
2012-08-02 09:08:43 AM  

unexplained bacon: beta_plus: I'm glad Obama is keeping us out of wars that are not in our interest, just like he promised in 2008.

Go Hopey McChange!

your comment would make sense if Obama was putting troops in Syria for regime change.
but he's not, and I'm glad.

aid to native rebels, and tactical drone strikes are a much better way to handle our troubles in the ME than full on government take overs wouldn't you say?

go ahead guy, tell us all what Obama should be doing...


*raises hand*
I'm going to go with "stop being a black muslim usurper" as his answer.
 
2012-08-02 09:10:43 AM  

MugzyBrown: I was in favor of invading Iraq...


MugzyBrown: I voted for Bush in '00...


www.lifeclever.com

3 out of 4 doctors recommend taking one (1) grain of salt prior to reading a MugzyBrown post.
 
2012-08-02 09:11:51 AM  

MugzyBrown: Then please explain the difference between the US putting troops on the ground with rebels to kill pro Assad forces and using a drone as CAS for rebels to kill pro Assad forces and using a spy satelite to tell rebels how to kill pro Assad forces.

They are all acts of war against pro Assad forces.


It would probably be worth identifying where in the article it says we are doing any of those things first.
 
2012-08-02 09:12:22 AM  

Deneb81: Not entirely against providing the rebels TD same kind of intel tools the Russians have been supplying Assad with for years though.


Bring back the cold war!
 
2012-08-02 09:13:54 AM  

MugzyBrown: I seriously want to know, were you in favor of invading Iraq?

I bet you were, and if so that would make your comments now look like complete partisan hackery of the highest order...and I'd be soooo surprised.

I was in favor of invading Iraq and now realise it was stupid. There are differences here. At least we were sold our involvement was security threat to the US via chemical weapons and possible terrorism links. That was obviously fabricated, exagerated, and/or misinterpreted, depending who you ask. I voted for Bush in '00 but not in '04.

I am willing to admit something I supported was wrong. I'm sure you're willing to admit that if McCain were in office today involving us in Lybia and Syria you'd be yelling about PNAC and such.


and I say you'd be for this aid to the rebels (different than an invasion, very important point you seem to have problems with) if McCain were President.

I've always thought that invasion/occupation in the ME (or elsewhere for that matter) was a bad idea, and I've always thought that tactical strikes and aid to local rebels was the better tactic. I promise you if Obama was trying to put troops into Syria to overthrow the regime, occupy the country, and rebuild it as a democracy I'd be pissed as hell.

You act as though you learned something, I think that's BS. I think you're new found common sense is nothing but partisan BS. Illustrated by the fact that you're pretending invasion/occupation is the same as clandestine aid. You can pretend but I see what you're doing.
 
2012-08-02 09:16:42 AM  

Deneb81: randomjsa: Oh wait you mean they might actually win? Obama can now swoop in to offer them support so he can once again take credit for something he doesn't deserve.

It's not clear they'll win now. Do you believe it was MORE clear months ago when the order was signed? Or that American CIA assistance mad the rebels LESS likely to succeed?


Don't expect this dipshiat to show his work.
 
2012-08-02 09:17:31 AM  

TappingTheVein: [www.titaniumteddybear.net image 611x304]

It never ceases to amaze me how the West has no farking clue about Middle-Eastern mentality.


Half those Muj were assassinated by the Taliban......on 9/10/01...because they were allied with the US.


/themoreyouknow
//ignoranceisbliss
 
2012-08-02 09:18:32 AM  
The power structure sure likes to flip Al Queda.
 
2012-08-02 09:19:22 AM  

MugzyBrown: Then please explain the difference between the US putting troops on the ground with rebels to kill pro Assad forces and using a drone as CAS for rebels to kill pro Assad forces and using a spy satelite to tell rebels how to kill pro Assad forces.

From the War Powers Resolution:

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall [bla bla congressional notification, 60 day requirement, etc]

Later:

For purposes of this chapter, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

The satellites could be considered not assisting if they were simply providing information (like detailed maps and troop reports) rather than acting as a C&C method.

 
2012-08-02 09:20:18 AM  
sprawl15:

sigh @ eaten italics tags
 
2012-08-02 09:20:37 AM  

unexplained bacon: I think you're new found common sense is nothing but partisan BS. Illustrated by the fact that you're pretending invasion/occupation is the same as clandestine aid. You can pretend but I see what you're doing.


I'm not a partisan, never have been. I've never given money or support to an GOP or DNC campaign. As an example, in 2000 when I voted for GW Bush, I also voted for Rob Andrews on the same ticket. So you can think whatever you want about me, but if you wish to portray me as a GOP flag waiver, you'd be wrong. If I had only the choice of voting for Obama or Romney, I'd vote for Obama.

With that said, invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force.

If we invaded and were repelled by Assad or provided only aid to the rebels and the rebels lose.. I think Assad would have the same opinion of the US.

Same thing if the rebels win, but are overthrown by a hard-line Islamic gov't in 5 years. They'll see us as an enemy who assisted the pro-west gov't (assuming the rebels will even be pro-west if they win).
 
2012-08-02 09:21:01 AM  
Can you keep a secret?
Why should I, if you can't?
 
2012-08-02 09:21:04 AM  

unexplained bacon: and I say you'd be for this aid to the rebels (different than an invasion, very important point you seem to have problems with)


We used to just send military advisers to countries we eventually ended up putting troops on the round in - how is this different?

Oh, and I was never in favor of invading Iraq.
 
2012-08-02 09:22:33 AM  

penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

Like you did, I guess. And let me surmise when that happened...was it around the same time you became a deficit hawk, say, around January 2009? Total coincidence, I'm certain.

Wrong dumbass.


I'm sure it was honest mistake, where's so many of you..
 
2012-08-02 09:24:16 AM  

MugzyBrown: With that said, invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force.


When the Chinese helped the Vietnamese fight us off, why didn't we treat it exactly like the Chinese invaded us?
 
2012-08-02 09:24:35 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: jaytkay: Republicans joining Iran in support of Assad regime in 3...2...1...

Why not? They'd sell weapons to Iran if it meant achieving their goals.


What you did there.... see it I
 
2012-08-02 09:25:13 AM  
MugzyBrown:

With that said, invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force.

well there's your problem...that's stupid.
 
2012-08-02 09:26:44 AM  

Happy Hours: unexplained bacon: and I say you'd be for this aid to the rebels (different than an invasion, very important point you seem to have problems with)

We used to just send military advisers to countries we eventually ended up putting troops on the round in - how is this different?

Oh, and I was never in favor of invading Iraq.


If we end up putting troops into Syria get back to me. I do not support that.

aid to rebels and invasion/occupation are very different. If you don't agree I don't know what to tell you.
 
2012-08-02 09:29:46 AM  

MugzyBrown: Same thing if the rebels win, but are overthrown by a hard-line Islamic gov't in 5 years. They'll see us as an enemy who assisted the pro-west gov't


yeah because a hard line Islamic govt would be US/Israel friendly otherwise right?
 
2012-08-02 09:30:31 AM  

sprawl15: When the Chinese helped the Vietnamese fight us off, why didn't we treat it exactly like the Chinese invaded us?


You don't think the we looked at the Chinese as an enemy..and kinda still do?

Of course your comparison is off.

Germany looked at the US as an enemy in WWII when we were assisting England during the BOB.

How do you think US/English relations would have been if the English were supplying the CSA during the civil war? Oh wait Just the idea of them receiving CSA diploments almost sparked war.
 
2012-08-02 09:32:14 AM  
Guns AND butter
 
2012-08-02 09:33:01 AM  
yeah because a hard line Islamic govt would be US/Israel friendly otherwise right?

Which country do we have the worst relations with in the middle east? Iran Why? Because we helped overthrow their government 40 years ago.
 
2012-08-02 09:33:54 AM  

MugzyBrown: sprawl15: When the Chinese helped the Vietnamese fight us off, why didn't we treat it exactly like the Chinese invaded us?

You don't think the we looked at the Chinese as an enemy..and kinda still do?

Of course your comparison is off.

Germany looked at the US as an enemy in WWII when we were assisting England during the BOB.

How do you think US/English relations would have been if the English were supplying the CSA during the civil war? Oh wait Just the idea of them receiving CSA diploments almost sparked war.


you can't be serious.

again looking at someone as an enemy isn't the same thing as having an open war with them.
you're trying to make two very different things the same, but you can't.

not to mention the fact that Syria already sees us as an enemy. You've really got less than nuthin' here.
 
2012-08-02 09:34:37 AM  

MugzyBrown: With that said, invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force.


no it's not. it's several orders of magnitude different.

that's like saying giving money to doctors without borders is exactly the same as quitting your private practice and moving overseas to donate your life to the charity.

the level of commitment is not the same.
 
2012-08-02 09:35:52 AM  

MugzyBrown: You don't think the we looked at the Chinese as an enemy..and kinda still do?


If they invaded/occupied California during the war, we wouldn't just have "looked at the Chinese as an enemy". We would have treated it like the act of war it was. The idea that "invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force" is blatantly false - yeah, it's definitely a hostile action, but certainly not on the same level as actual invasion/occupation.
 
2012-08-02 09:36:56 AM  
We're not doing enough to help them, but now that we're doing something, it's way too much.

Signed,

John McCain on behalf of the GOP
 
2012-08-02 09:38:35 AM  

MugzyBrown: yeah because a hard line Islamic govt would be US/Israel friendly otherwise right?

Which country do we have the worst relations with in the middle east? Iran Why? Because we helped overthrow their government 40 years ago.


I think their hate of Israel and their support of Hamas and the Palestinians vs Israel has a little something to do with it.
they're also paranoid about us taking their oil.
It's not just that one thing
the Persian history is long and storied
 
2012-08-02 09:39:59 AM  

sprawl15: MugzyBrown: You don't think the we looked at the Chinese as an enemy..and kinda still do?

If they invaded/occupied California during the war, we wouldn't just have "looked at the Chinese as an enemy". We would have treated it like the act of war it was. The idea that "invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force" is blatantly false - yeah, it's definitely a hostile action, but certainly not on the same level as actual invasion/occupation.


I'm tempted to believe maybe he's just that dense, but I have doubts. More likely it's just typical shiatstorm tactics.

if your best argument is to conflate two obviously different things then your best sucks.
 
2012-08-02 09:41:28 AM  

Happy Hours: unexplained bacon: and I say you'd be for this aid to the rebels (different than an invasion, very important point you seem to have problems with)

We used to just send military advisers to countries we eventually ended up putting troops on the round in - how is this different?

Oh, and I was never in favor of invading Iraq.


Looks like you forgot to log out of your alt, Mugzy,.
 
2012-08-02 09:41:39 AM  
MugzyBrown:

if invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to rebels then why the hell didn't we just aid anti-saddam rebels in Iraq and keep all that cash we blew stateside?

you're premise today is terrible I hope you're done now.
 
2012-08-02 09:42:37 AM  
your...
 
2012-08-02 09:43:00 AM  

sprawl15: If they invaded/occupied California during the war, we wouldn't just have "looked at the Chinese as an enemy". We would have treated it like the act of war it was. The idea that "invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force" is blatantly false - yeah, it's definitely a hostile action, but certainly not on the same level as actual invasion/occupation.


If the Iranian gov't provided a terror group with a few nuclear scientists and the weapon they helped build ended up killing thousands in the US, you don't think the US would see that as an act of war?

Do you think Obama would offer the same level of assistance to anti Putin rebels or anti Hu Jintao forces? No, because they can shoot back at us...and they probably would, because it'd be considered an act of war.
 
2012-08-02 09:47:11 AM  
MugzyBrown:

Are you going to address the example, or are you going to just keep changing the subject? If "invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force" is true, it's true in all cases. If it's not true in the case of the Chinese helping the Vietnamese, then your assertion is false. Period. Even if it's true in every single other historical example, it's not true in general. That's how these things work.

Act like an adult and address the topic.
 
2012-08-02 09:47:23 AM  
i.imgur.com

Why so Syria?
 
2012-08-02 09:47:27 AM  

MugzyBrown: sprawl15: If they invaded/occupied California during the war, we wouldn't just have "looked at the Chinese as an enemy". We would have treated it like the act of war it was. The idea that "invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force" is blatantly false - yeah, it's definitely a hostile action, but certainly not on the same level as actual invasion/occupation.

If the Iranian gov't provided a terror group with a few nuclear scientists and the weapon they helped build ended up killing thousands in the US, you don't think the US would see that as an act of war?

Do you think Obama would offer the same level of assistance to anti Putin rebels or anti Hu Jintao forces? No, because they can shoot back at us...and they probably would, because it'd be considered an act of war.


we aren't invading and occupying Syria. If you want to pretend we are then draw conclusions about 'libs' based on your imagined world good luck.

keep trying to make up a scenario in which your hopelessly flawed argument might make sense, meanwhile in this world we're talking about Obama helping Syrian rebels and your argument falls flat on it's face every time.
 
2012-08-02 09:47:30 AM  

Skleenar: Happy Hours: unexplained bacon: and I say you'd be for this aid to the rebels (different than an invasion, very important point you seem to have problems with)

We used to just send military advisers to countries we eventually ended up putting troops on the round in - how is this different?

Oh, and I was never in favor of invading Iraq.

Looks like you forgot to log out of your alt, Mugzy,.


Looks like you can't follow a thread.

unexplained bacon: if invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to rebels then why the hell didn't we just aid anti-saddam rebels in Iraq and keep all that cash we blew stateside?


If there were rebels in a position to threaten Saddam at the time, we probably would have, because the result is the same.

Just like we didn't initially put 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. We didn't need to. We used special forces, air power, and the northern alliance. Still looked like a big war.
 
2012-08-02 09:48:23 AM  

MugzyBrown: sprawl15: If they invaded/occupied California during the war, we wouldn't just have "looked at the Chinese as an enemy". We would have treated it like the act of war it was. The idea that "invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force" is blatantly false - yeah, it's definitely a hostile action, but certainly not on the same level as actual invasion/occupation.

If the Iranian gov't provided a terror group with a few nuclear scientists and the weapon they helped build ended up killing thousands in the US, you don't think the US would see that as an act of war?

Do you think Obama would offer the same level of assistance to anti Putin rebels or anti Hu Jintao forces? No, because they can shoot back at us...and they probably would, because it'd be considered an act of war.


Imagine that! There are a lot of imaginary situations that could be imagined that could make "aid" seem close to outright hostility. It also seems that the military capability and political will of a potential target for covert action matter! My, isn't the world a complex and interesting place!

I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.
 
2012-08-02 09:50:29 AM  

sprawl15: If it's not true in the case of the Chinese helping the Vietnamese, then your assertion is false. Period. Even if it's true in every single other historical example, it's not true in general. That's how these things work.

Act like an adult and address the topic.


I did address the topic by telling your equivalency was false, because the Chinese were not helping anti US Gov't forces from taking over the US.

And if you recall, I provided an example of European forces being perceived as to be being possibly open to the idea of maybe helping the CSA during the civil war... and that could have led to all out war with the US and England.
 
2012-08-02 09:51:14 AM  

Skleenar: Imagine that! There are a lot of imaginary situations that could be imagined that could make "aid" seem close to outright hostility. It also seems that the military capability and political will of a potential target for covert action matter! My, isn't the world a complex and interesting place!


well you see if the penguins gave zombie bin laden a vial of captain trips we would have to nuke antarctica and then hawaii would flood so we would have to nuke the ocean and furthermore
 
2012-08-02 09:51:43 AM  

spif: The real story is the source of this leak.


I'm going with Intentional. It didn't say much that you couldn't already figure out, but it got it to the top of Google News pretty damn quick. Sending message, etc.
 
2012-08-02 09:52:27 AM  

sprawl15: Skleenar: Imagine that! There are a lot of imaginary situations that could be imagined that could make "aid" seem close to outright hostility. It also seems that the military capability and political will of a potential target for covert action matter! My, isn't the world a complex and interesting place!

well you see if the penguins gave zombie bin laden a vial of captain trips we would have to nuke antarctica and then hawaii would flood so we would have to nuke the ocean and furthermore


♫ Burn the land and boil the sea.. ♫
 
2012-08-02 09:52:32 AM  
What's all this quibbling over the difference between boots and bombs? It doesn't matter how you shove your nose into Syria! Its none of your goddamn business!
 
2012-08-02 09:52:59 AM  
MugzyBrown:

if you learned anything from your years supporting a bad idea (invading iraq) I'd hope you learned that you are terrible at reading these things. You should have learned that if you're for something the right answer is to be against it...or at least you should have learned to stop talking, you likely have the wrong idea again.
 
2012-08-02 09:53:02 AM  

MugzyBrown: Looks like you can't follow a thread.


Me? Or you?

I'm not sure. But since your argument seems to be disingenuous fertilizer spreading, I'm pre-conditioned to expect other forms of disingenuousness out of you.
 
2012-08-02 09:53:23 AM  

Skleenar: Who's the hottie with Balki?


A duplicitous, lying c*nt rag. Newsweek had a piece by a journalist paid by Vogue to do a puff piece on the Syrian first lady. It closes with a great line, "What is consciousness when you're the first lady of hell?" Worth a read.
 
2012-08-02 09:54:13 AM  

Ned Stark: What's all this quibbling over the difference between boots and bombs? It doesn't matter how you shove your nose into Syria! Its none of your goddamn business!


So, then, that's nobody's business but the Turks'?
 
2012-08-02 09:56:30 AM  
if you learned anything from your years supporting a bad idea (invading iraq) I'd hope you learned that you are terrible at reading these things. You should have learned that if you're for something the right answer is to be against it...or at least you should have learned to stop talking, you likely have the wrong idea again.

What percisely makes invading Iraq a bad idea and assisting rebels in Libya & Syria a good idea?

Dig down to the core principles and tell me the difference, because when you get down to the bottom, you see the only difference is the price the US had to pay to get to the same result: An unstable government linked to western interference.
 
2012-08-02 09:57:06 AM  

Ned Stark: It doesn't matter how you shove your nose into Syria! Its none of your goddamn business!


Your just pissed because you got yourself caught in the middle of a dynastic struggle between two different noble houses and GWB got beheaded as a result.
 
2012-08-02 09:58:04 AM  

dookdookdook: So...just another one of those things that pretty much everyone besides al-Assad himself would approve of if not for Obama Derangement Syndrome?

Got it.

/off to the next thread


pretty much.
 
2012-08-02 09:58:07 AM  

MugzyBrown: I did address the topic by telling your equivalency was false, because the Chinese were not helping anti US Gov't forces from taking over the US.


What in the fark are you babbling about? I'm not making any equivalency, I'm taking your assertion ("invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force") and applying an example to it. If invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force, then when the Chinese provided aid to an anti-gov't force during Vietnam, we would have considered it identically to if they had actually invaded/occupied US territory.

MugzyBrown: And if you recall, I provided an example


You're still not getting the whole 'proving your assertion' thing, are you?
 
2012-08-02 09:58:33 AM  
I love these frequent moments what the right wants to be pissed off about something Obama has done and just haven't figured out what the angle is yet. Surely Rush will tell them what to think soon.
 
2012-08-02 09:58:51 AM  
Does this mean we support the terrorist rebels trying to overthrow an established government?

/the vagueness of international intrigue....

/I know I know, it's because of you're all humanitarians!
 
2012-08-02 10:01:59 AM  

Sabyen91: Really? Transparency in National Security issues? What kind of a moron are you?
/Seriously, I want to know what kind so I can avoid that kind.


As I recall, iawai is a libertarian-flavor one.

Team Coors Light: My point, which you do not get, is "let's get on with it"...blow them up, or leave them be.


There are times when optima may be located somewhere between the two extremes.
 
2012-08-02 10:02:37 AM  

MugzyBrown: if you learned anything from your years supporting a bad idea (invading iraq) I'd hope you learned that you are terrible at reading these things. You should have learned that if you're for something the right answer is to be against it...or at least you should have learned to stop talking, you likely have the wrong idea again.

What percisely makes invading Iraq a bad idea and assisting rebels in Libya & Syria a good idea?

Dig down to the core principles and tell me the difference, because when you get down to the bottom, you see the only difference is the price the US had to pay to get to the same result: An unstable government linked to western interference.


aiding the rebels is low commitment, invading/occupying is signing on to a major commitment.
there's a difference in cost, lives lost, international reaction, in just about every major aspect there's a huge difference.

/I wont be going over this point with you any longer it's plain dumb.
//you keep trying to stick that lousy point though
 
2012-08-02 10:03:14 AM  

Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.


I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.
 
2012-08-02 10:03:52 AM  

Skleenar: Ned Stark: It doesn't matter how you shove your nose into Syria! Its none of your goddamn business!

Your just pissed because you got yourself caught in the middle of a dynastic struggle between two different noble houses and GWB got beheaded as a result.


You HBO fans have absolutely ruined this series for me.

/snotty Hipster mode
 
2012-08-02 10:04:48 AM  

MugzyBrown: What percisely makes invading Iraq a bad idea


That's a multifaceted question, because an invasion needs a purpose. The pretense of our invasion was WMDs, something that was entirely vaporous. In theory, it could have been for humanitarian reasons, but that was entirely secondary to the goal of just kicking in the Republican Guard and sending home all the flowers and booze the Iraqis would no doubt lavish us with.

Were we to go for humanitarian reasons and begin nation building, we should have been prepared for that. We should have cooperated with partisan militias, we should have had a much stronger engineering/rebuilding presence, we should have had the general military trained up on counter-insurgency ops and urban warfare, etc., etc. The only possible 'good' reason to invade wasn't prepared for one bit.

MugzyBrown: assisting rebels in Libya & Syria a good idea?


It's the same basic humanitarian argument, but the people being oppressed are the ones fighting the fight. We're providing relatively small assistance in helping take out some egregious assholes, and we aren't committing forces in a way that obligates us to get mired down like we were in Iraq. Proxy wars are always 'safer' for us than regular wars.

Not to say this makes it a 'good' idea, but rather a far better idea. We're entering with very clear, very straightforward goals (overthrow Dictator Foo) and that's it. Completely different than our approach to Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
2012-08-02 10:07:00 AM  

Happy Hours: Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.

I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.


Wouldn't that be "refreeze" or "encolden" the cold war?
 
2012-08-02 10:07:22 AM  

Ned Stark: You HBO fans have absolutely ruined this series for me.

/snotty Hipster mode



//me too. Only watched season 1 after finishing the extant 5 books.
///going back to inlaying pieces on my home made cyvasse board.
 
2012-08-02 10:07:44 AM  

mrshowrules: Happy Hours: Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.

I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.

Wouldn't that be "refreeze" or "encolden" the cold war?


Undefrost.
 
2012-08-02 10:08:18 AM  

sprawl15: What in the fark are you babbling about? I'm not making any equivalency, I'm taking your assertion ("invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force") and applying an example to it. If invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force, then when the Chinese provided aid to an anti-gov't force during Vietnam, we would have considered it identically to if they had actually invaded/occupied US territory.


Wow, you really aren't good at this.

Vietnam war... took place in Vietnam. The Chinese helped the N Vietnamese.. the US helped the S Vietnamese.

This would be a good comparison:

Did the S. Vienamese consider the help the Chinese gave the N Vietnamese as a direct act of war against their government similar to invading themselves. Answer: 100% yes.

Why is this a good comparison?

S. Vietnam = Syria. S. Vietnam gov't = Assad. Chinese = US. N. Vietnamese = Rebels


Now your comparison:

Did the USA consider the help the Chinese gave the N Vietnamese as a direct act of war against their government similar to invading themselves. Answer: No. We didn't like it, but nobody was actually revolting on US soil.

Your comparison is more like this:

USA = Russia. Chinese = USA, N. Vietnamese = Syrian Rebels. Very confusing for you, I'm sure. But, Russia is helping Syria.. we are helping the Rebels. No, Russia and US don't consider themselves to be at war. It could possibily lead to fighting between the sides, but we're not going to start bombing Moscow.
 
2012-08-02 10:08:56 AM  

Happy Hours: Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.

I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.


in what respect, Charlie?
 
2012-08-02 10:09:15 AM  

MugzyBrown: comparison


What two things am I comparing?
 
2012-08-02 10:12:18 AM  

MugzyBrown: S. Vietnam = Syria. S. Vietnam gov't = Assad. Chinese = US. N. Vietnamese = Rebels


BZZT:

The correct form:

xx:yy :: aa:bb

As in:

Mugzy Brown:persuasion :: GWB:Presidentin'
 
2012-08-02 10:18:30 AM  
i290.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-02 10:19:40 AM  
Not to say this makes it a 'good' idea, but rather a far better idea. We're entering with very clear, very straightforward goals (overthrow Dictator Foo) and that's it. Completely different than our approach to Iraq or Afghanistan.

So the difference is international perception and cost to the US

unexplained bacon: aiding the rebels is low commitment, invading/occupying is signing on to a major commitment.
there's a difference in cost, lives lost, international reaction, in just about every major aspect there's a huge difference.


So the difference is international reaction and cost to the US


But in both the core is the same, neither really disagree. That's what I've said. The US is involving itself in a civil war with no threat to the US.

You are ok with the US involving itself in internal affairs of other countries and picking winners. I'm sure you know all about the intentions of the rebels once they obtain power... or are we maybe assisting the overthrow of one oppressor for another?

Unfortunately when the fark threads reach 300+, my work computer starts farking up and not loading threads properly.. so that's the end of my day here.
 
2012-08-02 10:22:17 AM  

sprawl15: MugzyBrown: comparison

What two things am I comparing?


Antigovernment rebels in a satellite state and antigovermemt rebels targeting a state's own government. Which really isn't the same at all. Hell, in Korea, china did invade. But somehow the united states didn't end up in war with them. I guess that means invasions aren't invasions?
 
2012-08-02 10:26:20 AM  

MugzyBrown:

Unfortunately when the fark threads reach 300+, my work computer starts farking up and not loading threads properly.. so that's the end of my day here.


Wow, that has got to be the most chick shiat excuse for back out of a losing argument I have seen on fark in a while. Not quite as good as blaming it on the wife but still pretty solid weaseling.
 
2012-08-02 10:28:08 AM  

Ned Stark: Antigovernment rebels in a satellite state and antigovermemt rebels targeting a state's own government.


sprawl15: What in the fark are you babbling about? I'm not making any equivalency, I'm taking your MugzyBrown's assertion ("invasion/occupation is the same thing as aid to an anti-gov't force") and applying an example to it.


...but I repeat myself.

MugzyBrown: So the difference is international perception and cost to the US


Duh. That's also the difference between dropping a nuke on Islamabad and spending that money on helping starving African children ward of malaria.

MugzyBrown: But in both the core is the same


Wrong. The Iraq war was waged under a false pretense, and committed troops with no plan on getting them out. That's vastly different.

Picking off a scab and cutting your balls off with a rusty knife are both bad ideas. One of them is a much worse idea for a vast number of reasons. Saying "well, they're both painful but at the core they're the same thing" ignores everything but the one thing you choose to highlight because it helps your argument. It's disingenuous and stupid to say that providing intel to rebels is exactly the same as occupying a nation for the better part of a decade.

MugzyBrown: You are ok with


I haven't said shiat about what I'm OK with. Yet again, you're making things up to fit your narrative.

MugzyBrown: Unfortunately when the fark threads reach 300+, my work computer starts farking up and not loading threads properly..


lol
 
2012-08-02 10:31:23 AM  

max_pooper: MugzyBrown:

Unfortunately when the fark threads reach 300+, my work computer starts farking up and not loading threads properly.. so that's the end of my day here.

Wow, that has got to be the most chick shiat excuse for back out of a losing argument I have seen on fark in a while. Not quite as good as blaming it on the wife but still pretty solid weaseling.


Funniest part?

img198.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-02 10:33:27 AM  
Romney's take on the situation: Desert. Hot. Bad.
 
2012-08-02 10:34:20 AM  
"Hitting someone with a bat is pretty much much the same as hitting someone with a shovel"

"Nuh-uh! Your nose bled when I hit you with a bat but I hit Steve with a shovel and your nose didn't bleed."
 
2012-08-02 10:34:31 AM  

MugzyBrown: But in both the core is the same, neither really disagree. That's what I've said. The US is involving itself in a civil war with no threat to the US.


On the same token, criticizing a sitting regime for violence against their citizens is really just on the same spectrum. The only difference is the cost to the US and international reaction.

Why do we do ANYTHING! It's all immoral one way or another!

Thanks for clarifying things Mugzy. I'll just sit here and mope futilely.
 
2012-08-02 10:37:46 AM  

mrshowrules: I love these frequent moments what the right wants to be pissed off about something Obama has done and just haven't figured out what the angle is yet. Surely Rush will tell them what to think soon.


It is one of the bright spots in the black hole that is the politics tab. He did something they wanted, and they still just can't bring themselves to give him credit. Let's find some strawman to attack instead!
 
2012-08-02 10:38:01 AM  
Another day, another leak of classified data from the White House.

Don't we hang people for treason anymore?
 
2012-08-02 10:38:13 AM  
d

Sabyen91: I hope she isn't expecting conjugal visits. Marcus is going to go nuts for nuts.



crazy for coco puffs
 
2012-08-02 10:39:26 AM  

Ned Stark:

Awwwww....SOMEONE wants attention.

birchman: He did something they wanted, and they still just can't bring themselves to give him credit. Let's find some strawman to attack instead!


Well, I heard, from an e-mail my great-uncle sent me, that Obama is looking to steal our guns. It looks legitimate.
 
2012-08-02 10:40:05 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: jaytkay: TheGogmagog: Better than those Symbian Rebels.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x286]

/ Old

Oh, my beloved Tania
How I long to see your face
Photographed in fifteen second intervals
In a bank in San Leandro
A Polaroid of you, Cinque
With a seven-headed dragon
In a house in Daly City

cvb


yeessssssss
 
2012-08-02 10:40:13 AM  
MugzyBrown:

You are ok with the US involving itself in internal affairs of other countries and picking winners. I'm sure you know all about the intentions of the rebels once they obtain power... or are we maybe assisting the overthrow of one oppressor for another?

to sum up:

are there risks? yep.
are there risks to doing nothing? yep
is aiding the rebels the same thing as invading and then occupying Syria? not at all, no.


Unfortunately when the fark threads reach 300+, my work computer starts farking up and not loading threads properly.. so that's the end of my day here.


well that sucks, I bet you were just about to make a solid point too. Damn work computer, oh well, you should probably get some work done anyway. I should too.
 
2012-08-02 10:43:30 AM  

Ned Stark: "Hitting someone with a bat is pretty much much the same as hitting someone with a shovel"

"Nuh-uh! Your nose bled when I hit you with a bat but I hit Steve with a shovel and your nose didn't bleed."


telling your friend the best place to hit his enemy with a bat is the same as hitting your friend's enemy with a shock and awe campaign.

right?
 
2012-08-02 10:44:55 AM  

Leeds: Another day, another leak of classified data from the White House.

Don't we hang people for treason anymore?


You're adorable.
 
2012-08-02 10:45:38 AM  

Triumph: Bigdogdaddy: If only GW was still in power and he could scream WMD's. Ahhhh, the good old days!

Oh, did you miss when Obama warned about them last week?


That would be the statement that came after Assad said, "Yes, we have chemical weapons and we will use them if you invade us".
 
2012-08-02 10:46:09 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: dSabyen91: I hope she isn't expecting conjugal visits. Marcus is going to go nuts for nuts.


crazy kookoo for coco puffs


ftfm
 
2012-08-02 10:46:32 AM  

iawai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...

When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.


It's the craziest thing, watching conservatives try to now be against government secrets and war. Especially because they are simultaneously for war with Iran and against leaks. Just the gosh darnedest thing I just can't wrap my head around it.
 
2012-08-02 10:47:22 AM  

sprawl15: Ned Stark:

Awwwww....SOMEONE wants attention.

birchman: He did something they wanted, and they still just can't bring themselves to give him credit. Let's find some strawman to attack instead!

Well, I heard, from an e-mail my great-uncle sent me, that Obama is looking to steal our guns. It looks legitimate.


Straightforward analogies are attention seeking?

Quizzical_dog.jpg
 
2012-08-02 10:53:23 AM  
One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.
 
2012-08-02 10:54:52 AM  

I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.


It's very hard to believe that someone can be this ignorant.
 
2012-08-02 10:55:28 AM  

I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.


Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?
 
2012-08-02 10:58:31 AM  

someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?


Do you know how Iran got to its current state?
 
2012-08-02 10:59:15 AM  

unexplained bacon: Ned Stark: "Hitting someone with a bat is pretty much much the same as hitting someone with a shovel"

"Nuh-uh! Your nose bled when I hit you with a bat but I hit Steve with a shovel and your nose didn't bleed."

telling your friend the best place to hit his enemy with a bat is the same as hitting your friend's enemy with a shock and awe campaign.

right?


That's a bit stretched, but I'm gonna go with "no."
 
2012-08-02 11:02:40 AM  

I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?

Do you know how Iran got to its current state?


Obama and his damn time machine again, eh?
 
2012-08-02 11:02:58 AM  

I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?

Do you know how Iran got to its current state?


Why don't you just skip ahead to whatever point you're trying to make?
 
2012-08-02 11:03:34 AM  
Reagan having the CIA help rebels: Democrats scream it is bad, Republicans scream it is good.

Obama having the CIA help rebels: Republicans scream it is bad, Democrats scream it is good.

Just more of the same shiat.
 
2012-08-02 11:03:59 AM  

qorkfiend: Leeds: Another day, another leak of classified data from the White House.

Don't we hang people for treason anymore?

You're adorable.


Gonna take that as a no
 
2012-08-02 11:04:52 AM  

Ned Stark: unexplained bacon: Ned Stark: "Hitting someone with a bat is pretty much much the same as hitting someone with a shovel"

"Nuh-uh! Your nose bled when I hit you with a bat but I hit Steve with a shovel and your nose didn't bleed."

telling your friend the best place to hit his enemy with a bat is the same as hitting your friend's enemy with a shock and awe campaign.

right?

That's a bit stretched, but I'm gonna go with "no."


if we're talking about the 'aid to rebels = invasion/occupy' silliness then your analogy is terrible.
my analogy was straight forward.

we are talking about 'aid to rebels = invasion/occupy' aren't we?
say it, say 'aid to rebels = invasion/occupy'

unless I misunderstood what your analogy was supposed to represent, in which case clear that up for me.
 
2012-08-02 11:05:03 AM  

someonelse: I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?

Do you know how Iran got to its current state?

Why don't you just skip ahead to whatever point you're trying to make?


We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.
 
2012-08-02 11:06:47 AM  
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad's armed opponents

Well yeah, they're not Jewish...

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

Wait, so are we giving them pepper spray and tazers or something? "Here, throw these party poppers at them. We used them in Iraq with great success."

NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.


*snerk*

Separately from the president's secret order, the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is providing some backing for Assad's opponents.

Well if we're not giving them lethal weapons, and we have stated publicly that we are giving them support - read: subterfuge - and then you go and find a secret order stating the exact same thing then why is this such a big deal again?

The State Department also says the United States has set aside $64 million in humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people, including contributions to the World Food Program, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other aid agencies.

Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.

So, in summation, you have uncovered a secret document stating what Obama has already stated in public? Top notch reporting there, Lou.
 
2012-08-02 11:07:00 AM  
Nice tag-team we've got going here.

Could you clowns be any more obvious?
 
2012-08-02 11:08:22 AM  

Ned Stark: That's a bit stretched, but I'm gonna go with "no."


img10.imageshack.us

That's what I told your mother last night.
 
2012-08-02 11:11:46 AM  

I alone am best: We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.


I'd call that a fair point, but it's got a funny twist coming from the same people who shouted down opposition to the Iraq war with stuff like, 'Freedom isn't free!!'
 
2012-08-02 11:12:47 AM  

sprawl15: mrshowrules: Happy Hours: Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.

I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.

Wouldn't that be "refreeze" or "encolden" the cold war?

Undefrost.


Embiggen.
 
2012-08-02 11:13:15 AM  

unexplained bacon: I alone am best: We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.

I'd call that a fair point, but it's got a funny twist coming from the same people who shouted down opposition to the Iraq war with stuff like, 'Freedom isn't free!!'


Or who insist that we're currently not doing enough to aid the Syrian rebels.
 
2012-08-02 11:16:23 AM  

qorkfiend: unexplained bacon: I alone am best: We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.

I'd call that a fair point, but it's got a funny twist coming from the same people who shouted down opposition to the Iraq war with stuff like, 'Freedom isn't free!!'

Or who insist that we're currently not doing enough to aid the Syrian rebels.


it makes sense, if we can topple assad with just a little push then do it.
unless Obama is doing it, then it's the same thing as invading Iraq, and why the hell aren't the libs mad?
 
2012-08-02 11:17:10 AM  
The art of discourse is really lost, isn't it?
 
2012-08-02 11:18:20 AM  

Epoch_Zero: NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.


*snerk*


I would imagine they're either SA- models via countries like Saudi or Mistrals from France.
 
2012-08-02 11:19:11 AM  

sprawl15: Epoch_Zero: NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.


*snerk*

I would imagine they're either SA- models via countries like Saudi or Mistrals from France.


Let's give NBC some credit for not referring to them as AK-47s.
 
2012-08-02 11:20:09 AM  
It's looking more and more like the Syrian "uprising" is a Western scheme, like how the "KLA" was actually just a bunch of gangsters who were hired to create an excuse to intervene. The biggest clue is that every AP article in the corporate media is unflinchingly pro-rebels, particularly by trumpeting their every stupid little minor action as a humongous blow against Assad. Multiple sources are saying the rebels have been carrying out massacres in order to blame them on the government, including one case where there was a massacre in a town that was under total rebel control. I don't know for certain but this isn't even as clean-cut as the Libyan civil war, which was (and still is) itself a clusterfark.

I'm not pro-Assad (and it's pathetic that I even have to say that) but it doesn't look like we have a dog in this race. The rebels are almost certainly going to lose (barring direct Western military intervention) and that might be a good thing.
 
2012-08-02 11:21:51 AM  

RanDomino: Multiple sources are saying the rebels have been carrying out massacres in order to blame them on the government, including one case where there was a massacre in a town that was under total rebel control.


Surely with multiple sources you could provide one for our edification.
 
2012-08-02 11:22:10 AM  

unexplained bacon: Ned Stark: unexplained bacon: Ned Stark: "Hitting someone with a bat is pretty much much the same as hitting someone with a shovel"

"Nuh-uh! Your nose bled when I hit you with a bat but I hit Steve with a shovel and your nose didn't bleed."

telling your friend the best place to hit his enemy with a bat is the same as hitting your friend's enemy with a shock and awe campaign.

right?

That's a bit stretched, but I'm gonna go with "no."

if we're talking about the 'aid to rebels = invasion/occupy' silliness then your analogy is terrible.
my analogy was straight forward.

we are talking about 'aid to rebels = invasion/occupy' aren't we?
say it, say 'aid to rebels = invasion/occupy'

unless I misunderstood what your analogy was supposed to represent, in which case clear that up for me.


The point is that Vietnam was not, in fact, US territory. That even if aiding rebels is equivalent to invasion/occupation of territory The US would not react as if it had been invaded because the rebels are in farking Vietnam.
 
2012-08-02 11:23:35 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: And douchebag anything-Obama-does-sucks twits, the world is a complicated place. And Bush never did much to help the people of North Korea even after meeting with the author of Aquariums of Pyongyang, did he? And they were 1/3rd of the AXIS OF MOTHERF--KING EVIL!. This isn't a right vs wrong thing, this is a 'hold off lethal weapon support, but help out in any other way possible be it communications or tactical via Turkey". That's different. Christ.


While I think Obama's foreign policy here is an improvement of the Bush/Cheney approach, I still object to what's being done. It's taking sides, it's interventionist, and it creates new enemies when the US already has made plenty. Don't get me wrong, I think many of those tyrannical leaders ought to be overthrown, but I think it's a bad move for our government to meddle, covert or overtly. I'd rather look for ways to help them privately and voluntarily.
 
2012-08-02 11:26:19 AM  

Deftoons: and it creates new enemies when the US already has made plenty.


What new enemies has it created?

Deftoons: I'd rather look for ways to help them privately and voluntarily.


What does "privately and voluntarily" mean, in this case?
 
2012-08-02 11:26:51 AM  

TheGogmagog: Sergeant Grumbles: God dammit, Nappa. I read that as "Saiyan Rebels".

Better than those Symbian Rebels. *cough *GD*


Not as great as the Sybian Rebels. They'll splooge you to death.
 
2012-08-02 11:40:24 AM  
Chaos is stability

If Syria is in civil war, they won't be able to support anti-Israel interest.
Happy now Mr. Adelson?
 
2012-08-02 11:43:13 AM  

unexplained bacon: I alone am best: We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.

I'd call that a fair point, but it's got a funny twist coming from the same people who shouted down opposition to the Iraq war with stuff like, 'Freedom isn't free!!'


To tell you the truth I wasn't really politically active when that started and just supported it because I knew people going, personally I wasn't supporting the idea so much as I was supporting the troops that were tasked with it. Now that I know more, it was a pretty bad idea.
 
2012-08-02 11:46:53 AM  
I have a great idea!

Lets ask Republicans what is the best way to handle this, they have had an amazing record before!

/This is what Republicans actually believe!
 
2012-08-02 11:47:26 AM  

machoprogrammer: Reagan having the CIA help rebels: Democrats scream it is bad, Republicans scream it is good.

Obama having the CIA help rebels: Republicans scream it is bad, Democrats scream it is good.

Just more of the same shiat.


I know. It's EXACTLY the same. I mean, of course, if you ignore the whole "Executive branch providing funding to the rebels in direct contravention of duly enacted legislation" thing.

but, I mean, that's at the END of the first paragraph in the wiki. No one has that long of an attention span.
 
2012-08-02 11:47:59 AM  
Obama is on the wrong side of this. Syrian christians are protected by and supportive of Assad. the repubs can quickly pivot to "waring against Christians"

/watch it will happen
 
2012-08-02 11:51:15 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: Obama is on the wrong side of this. Syrian christians are protected by and supportive of Assad. the repubs can quickly pivot to "waring against Christians"

/watch it will happen


And you bigger right off too.

Syrian conflicts over Syrian leadership are none of your buisness. NONE. Hands off!
 
2012-08-02 11:54:11 AM  

I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?

Do you know how Iran got to its current state?

Why don't you just skip ahead to whatever point you're trying to make?

We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.


The cows have long ago left the barn on that. So long ago that the cows no longer remember what it was like to live in a barn. Closing the door now accomplishes nothing.
 
2012-08-02 11:55:09 AM  

Ned Stark: TrollingForColumbine: Obama is on the wrong side of this. Syrian christians are protected by and supportive of Assad. the repubs can quickly pivot to "waring against Christians"

/watch it will happen

And you bigger right off too.

Syrian conflicts over Syrian leadership are none of your buisness. NONE. Hands off!


You bet your ass they're Israel's business, and as we all know, Israel's business is our business.
 
2012-08-02 11:56:39 AM  

Epoch_Zero: sprawl15: mrshowrules: Happy Hours: Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.

I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.

Wouldn't that be "refreeze" or "encolden" the cold war?

Undefrost.

Embiggen.


I don't think that is a cromulent word
 
2012-08-02 11:58:20 AM  

NateGrey: I have a great idea!

Lets ask Republicans what is the best way to handle this, they have had an amazing record before!

/This is what Republicans actually believe!


The economy is just fine! Quick... look over at Syria!
 
2012-08-02 11:59:58 AM  

RanDomino: It's looking more and more like the Syrian "uprising" is a Western scheme, like how the "KLA" was actually just a bunch of gangsters who were hired to create an excuse to intervene. The biggest clue is that every AP article in the corporate media is unflinchingly pro-rebels, particularly by trumpeting their every stupid little minor action as a humongous blow against Assad. Multiple sources are saying the rebels have been carrying out massacres in order to blame them on the government, including one case where there was a massacre in a town that was under total rebel control. I don't know for certain but this isn't even as clean-cut as the Libyan civil war, which was (and still is) itself a clusterfark.

I'm not pro-Assad (and it's pathetic that I even have to say that) but it doesn't look like we have a dog in this race. The rebels are almost certainly going to lose (barring direct Western military intervention) and that might be a good thing.


Guess you missed the article last night reporting on condemnation they received for 20-some illegal executions the rebels carried out in the streets of Aleppo.

Deftoons: While I think Obama's foreign policy here is an improvement of the Bush/Cheney approach, I still object to what's being done. It's taking sides, it's interventionist, and it creates new enemies when the US already has made plenty. Don't get me wrong, I think many of those tyrannical leaders ought to be overthrown, but I think it's a bad move for our government to meddle, covert or overtly. I'd rather look for ways to help them privately and voluntarily.


There are no "new enemies" to be made. The Assad gov't is very hostile towards Israel, which unfortunately makes them unfriendly to the US. If he retained power, even if we did absolutely nothing, it wouldn't improve our relations. If the rebellion is successful however, our inaction would not be taken very well.

Here's the thing: shiat is going down with or without our involvement. If anything, our light touch is stemming heavier action by Turkey, and if not us, the Saudis are doing similar anyway. The whole situation is very delicate and complex, and quite frankly I think our current policy regarding Syria is the correct one.
 
2012-08-02 12:02:18 PM  

someonelse: The cows have long ago left the barn on that. So long ago that the cows no longer remember what it was like to live in a barn. Closing the door now accomplishes nothing.


qorkfiend: You bet your ass they're Israel's business, and as we all know, Israel's business is our business.


These are the unfortunate realities of the situation.
 
2012-08-02 12:02:27 PM  
qorkfiend
Surely with multiple sources you could provide one for our edification.

I don't know how reliable this is having myself not seen the article mentioned. (for me the page flips to a "page not found" so hit esc when it loads)
It doesn't do anything for this story's credibility that it's mostly copypasta'd on unreliable sites like globalresearch. But overall the stories out of Syria are either coming from the conspiracy-theory crowd or from known State propaganda organs, the latter generally written in a style that immediately sets off my bullshiat detector, such as this one- it's AP, which carries this mystique of being the dehumanized Voice of Truth, but uses phrases such as "fiercest fighting seen in the country's largest city, which has been a key bastion of support for President Bashar Assad" (implying that the support is weakening even though the plural of anecdote is not data) and "dozens of fighters from the rag-tag Free Syrian Army" ('rag-tag' is obviously supposed to engender sympathy; but, more importantly, even the AP admits there were only "dozens" of them, but it's being trumpeted as this major offensive) and quoting only one side.
 
2012-08-02 12:06:10 PM  

NateGrey: I have a great idea!

Lets ask Republicans what is the best way to handle this, they have had an amazing record before!


I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.
 
2012-08-02 12:07:07 PM  

Skleenar: Happy Hours: Skleenar: I wonder what Happy Hours thinks.

I think the US has involved itself in too many other countries using the excuse that we're not actually planning on sending in troops or getting into a war with them.

Thanks for wondering.

I wonder why some people want to reignite the cold war.

in what respect, Charlie?


Russia against the US - Russia helps Assad. US helps the rebels. Maybe this is just more of a proxy war which I suppose is better than the US and Russia fighting each other directly in a war....which is nice....so it's got that going for it.

I just really don't see the US interest in aiding the rebels. Sure, we don't like Assad or the way Syria operates today. If the rebels are crushed we still won't like it and it can only raise tensions between Syria and all of its current allies.

If the rebels win I don't think it's going to matter much whether or not we helped them. They're not going to just decide to ignore diplomatic relations with the US just because we didn't funnel aid to them and on the flip side, they're not going to decide to be friendly to Israel and stop being an ally to Iran solely on the basis that we did help them.

It's just more meddling around in the affairs of a Middle Easter country.
 
2012-08-02 12:07:24 PM  

Leeds: NateGrey: I have a great idea!

Lets ask Republicans what is the best way to handle this, they have had an amazing record before!

I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.


If you wanted to know where you lost the last shred of credibility you had, it was "Reds in the White House".
 
2012-08-02 12:11:31 PM  

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: TrollingForColumbine: Obama is on the wrong side of this. Syrian christians are protected by and supportive of Assad. the repubs can quickly pivot to "waring against Christians"

/watch it will happen

And you bigger right off too.

Syrian conflicts over Syrian leadership are none of your buisness. NONE. Hands off!

You bet your ass they're Israel's business, and as we all know, Israel's business is our business.


And Israel would rather have Assad. He is stable and predictable. They would have preferred Mubarak to stay as well. Better the devil you know.
 
2012-08-02 12:15:40 PM  

qorkfiend: Leeds: NateGrey: I have a great idea!

Lets ask Republicans what is the best way to handle this, they have had an amazing record before!

I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.

If you wanted to know where you lost the last shred of credibility you had, it was "Reds in the White House".


Wait when did this troll have any credibility?
 
2012-08-02 12:16:22 PM  

Leeds: the Reds in the White House.


Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton?
 
2012-08-02 12:17:02 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: And Israel would rather have Assad. He is stable and predictable. They would have preferred Mubarak to stay as well. Better the devil you know.


Mubarak wasn't nearly as hostile towards Israel as Assad is. Not in the slightest. That's not to say that they're pro-regime-change but I seriously doubt they'd shed a tear over Assad's departure.
 
2012-08-02 12:22:29 PM  

RanDomino: qorkfiend
Surely with multiple sources you could provide one for our edification.

I don't know how reliable this is having myself not seen the article mentioned. (for me the page flips to a "page not found" so hit esc when it loads)
It doesn't do anything for this story's credibility that it's mostly copypasta'd on unreliable sites like globalresearch. But overall the stories out of Syria are either coming from the conspiracy-theory crowd or from known State propaganda organs, the latter generally written in a style that immediately sets off my bullshiat detector, such as this one- it's AP, which carries this mystique of being the dehumanized Voice of Truth, but uses phrases such as "fiercest fighting seen in the country's largest city, which has been a key bastion of support for President Bashar Assad" (implying that the support is weakening even though the plural of anecdote is not data) and "dozens of fighters from the rag-tag Free Syrian Army" ('rag-tag' is obviously supposed to engender sympathy; but, more importantly, even the AP admits there were only "dozens" of them, but it's being trumpeted as this major offensive) and quoting only one side.


Seems reliable. Especially since people behind voltairenet claim that 9/11 was inside job
 
2012-08-02 12:25:57 PM  

Happy Hours: It's just more meddling around in the affairs of a Middle Easter country.


Yes. Surely this will re-ignite the cold war.

I mean, sure, the US and Russia often support different teams in regional conflicts, as do the US and China and the US and other international or regional powers for that matter.

But this, THIS is the straw that will break the camelbear's back!
 
2012-08-02 12:28:14 PM  

Skleenar: Happy Hours: It's just more meddling around in the affairs of a Middle Easter country.

Yes. Surely this will re-ignite the cold war.

I mean, sure, the US and Russia often support different teams in regional conflicts, as do the US and China and the US and other international or regional powers for that matter.

But this, THIS is the straw that will break the camelbear's back!


Sometimes the straw doesn't have to be too heavy. I bet if you told the Europeans in 1913 that in one year, they'd all be at each other's throats over the actions of the Serbians, they would have laughed in your face.
 
2012-08-02 12:32:08 PM  

Skleenar: Happy Hours: It's just more meddling around in the affairs of a Middle Easter country.

Yes. Surely this will re-ignite the cold war.

I mean, sure, the US and Russia often support different teams in regional conflicts, as do the US and China and the US and other international or regional powers for that matter.

But this, THIS is the straw that will break the camelbear's back!


Well, I brought up cold war to begin with because someone used the excuse that Russia is supporting Assad so why shouldn't we support the rebels? That's cold war thinking right there.

Funny you chose to quote that one line from my post though while not addressing our complete lack of national interest in supporting the rebels other than they're against Assad too.
 
2012-08-02 12:32:16 PM  

someonelse: I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?

Do you know how Iran got to its current state?

Why don't you just skip ahead to whatever point you're trying to make?

We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.

The cows have long ago left the barn on that. So long ago that the cows no longer remember what it was like to live in a barn. Closing the door now accomplishes nothing.


The cows no longer remember the barn because they left so long ago that they have been rounded up, transported, butchered, transported again, packaged, sold, transported yet again, grilled, served, eaten, digested, shiat out, and are currently residing in a sewage treatment plant or septic tank.
 
2012-08-02 12:33:20 PM  

Skleenar: Happy Hours: It's just more meddling around in the affairs of a Middle Easter country.

Yes. Surely this will re-ignite the cold war.

I mean, sure, the US and Russia often support different teams in regional conflicts, as do the US and China and the US and other international or regional powers for that matter.

But this, THIS is the straw that will break the camelbear's back!


Look.. it's in Russia's best interest to keep Assad in power, and they will do, and have done, everything they can diplomatically to prop him up. If things escalated to the point of foreign military intervention, however, they'll yell a lot but won't.. -can't- do anything about it militarily.
Syria is worth something to Russia, but not enough for active engagement even if they were able to.. which they aren't because there's a country that's a synonym for a tasty fowl that would pose a logistical impossibility for them.
 
2012-08-02 12:37:31 PM  

Skleenar: machoprogrammer: Reagan having the CIA help rebels: Democrats scream it is bad, Republicans scream it is good.

Obama having the CIA help rebels: Republicans scream it is bad, Democrats scream it is good.

Just more of the same shiat.

I know. It's EXACTLY the same. I mean, of course, if you ignore the whole "Executive branch providing funding to the rebels in direct contravention of duly enacted legislation" thing.

but, I mean, that's at the END of the first paragraph in the wiki. No one has that long of an attention span.


I was actually referring to the whole Central and South America things that were pulled during the 80s, but nice try. Iran-Contra was bad no matter how you pull it.
 
2012-08-02 12:39:31 PM  
LewDux
Seems reliable. Especially since people behind voltairenet claim that 9/11 was inside job

They're citing articles in mainstream German publications. If du kannst Deutsch lesen here's Hackensberger's blog.
 
2012-08-02 12:43:41 PM  

someonelse: I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: someonelse: I alone am best: One Iran wasn't enough for the Obama administration so they are looking to make a few more.

Did you think that made sense when you typed it, or were you just hoping it did?

Do you know how Iran got to its current state?

Why don't you just skip ahead to whatever point you're trying to make?

We should just stop messing with other countries because it never works out in our favor.

The cows have long ago left the barn on that. So long ago that the cows no longer remember what it was like to live in a barn. Closing the door now accomplishes nothing.


You have to start somewhere.
 
2012-08-02 12:45:16 PM  

I alone am best: You have to start somewhere.


That's not how the world, and the US's position in it, works.
 
2012-08-02 01:01:00 PM  

penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.


I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.
 
2012-08-02 01:06:53 PM  

qorkfiend: Skleenar: Happy Hours: It's just more meddling around in the affairs of a Middle Easter country.

Yes. Surely this will re-ignite the cold war.

I mean, sure, the US and Russia often support different teams in regional conflicts, as do the US and China and the US and other international or regional powers for that matter.

But this, THIS is the straw that will break the camelbear's back!

Sometimes the straw doesn't have to be too heavy. I bet if you told the Europeans in 1913 that in one year, they'd all be at each other's throats over the actions of the Serbians, they would have laughed in your face.


To be fair, the Serbians would have laughed as well.
 
2012-08-02 01:08:34 PM  

BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.



oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.
 
2012-08-02 01:11:14 PM  

Leeds: I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.



Like all Republicans you are a moron with nothing of value to add to any facet of international relations.

You guys broke the world from 2000-2008.

Thanks for nothing.
 
2012-08-02 01:17:20 PM  

The Bestest: There are no "new enemies" to be made. The Assad gov't is very hostile towards Israel, which unfortunately makes them unfriendly to the US.


We have to start asking ourselves why we must be so tied to one country.

If the US became non-interventionist, any enemy of Israel would, after time, no longer become an "enemy by association" of the US. Israel isn't the 51st state of the union, why must we treat them as such?
 
2012-08-02 01:18:35 PM  

NateGrey: Leeds: I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.


Like all Republicans you are a moron with nothing of value to add to any facet of international relations.

You guys broke the world from 2000-2008.

Thanks for nothing.


Oh yeah... all of the world's problems started in 2000.

Pot meet kettle.
 
2012-08-02 01:22:52 PM  

Deftoons: Israel isn't the 51st state of the union, why must we treat them as such?


Because the people we elect to represent us treat them as such.
 
2012-08-02 01:23:04 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: TrollingForColumbine: Obama is on the wrong side of this. Syrian christians are protected by and supportive of Assad. the repubs can quickly pivot to "waring against Christians"

/watch it will happen

And you bigger right off too.

Syrian conflicts over Syrian leadership are none of your buisness. NONE. Hands off!

You bet your ass they're Israel's business, and as we all know, Israel's business is our business.

And Israel would rather have Assad. He is stable and predictable. They would have preferred Mubarak to stay as well. Better the devil you know.


Israel doesn't like Assad, who has been heavily arming Lebanon and assasinating the more moderate leaders there.

However, this one is all about Turkey. Declared or not, there is a war going on between Syra and Turkey. We're supporting our allies, the Turks. This is completely appropriate.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:12 PM  

Deftoons: We have to start asking ourselves why we must be so tied to one country.

If the US became non-interventionist, any enemy of Israel would, after time, no longer become an "enemy by association" of the US. Israel isn't the 51st state of the union, why must we treat them as such?


You can start looking here for one.

Aside from that, they're our key "ally" in the region and a large component of our sphere of influence in the region, but unfortunately they're poisonous in that regard as well. This is another reason why regime changes in the region, even if they don't turn out 100% in our favor, are considered worth the risk, because the more US-friendly actors there are, the looser Israel's grip on our balls becomes.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:58 PM  

NateGrey: Leeds: I'll bite.

The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

//State Secrets aren't State Secrets any more when they are leaked by the Reds in the White House.


Like all Republicans you are a moron with nothing of value to add to any facet of international relations.

You guys broke the world from 2000-2008.

Thanks for nothing.


Nothing to add? That's your response to the comments I added above? That I have nothing to add? Odd little world you live in, friend.

First and foremost, I think that Obama is doing the right thing by backing the rebels. But his effectiveness in this situation has just been undermined because of the traitor in his administration.

It is baffling that Obama continues to allow traitors in his inner circle- this is what, the 4th time sensitive information has been leaked in as many months?

// I'd insult you back, but I'm fairly certain it would go over your head.
 
2012-08-02 01:35:59 PM  

Leeds: The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.


I agree. Scooter Libby should've been hung.

/his wife would agree.
 
2012-08-02 01:46:48 PM  
www.leninimports.com

What U.S. support for Syrian militants might look like...
 
2012-08-02 01:48:41 PM  

Happy Hours: Well, I brought up cold war to begin with because someone used the excuse that Russia is supporting Assad so why shouldn't we support the rebels? That's cold war thinking right there.


That wasn't in the post you were responding to, so how would I have guessed that's what you meant

Funny you chose to quote that one line from my post though while not addressing our complete lack of national interest in supporting the rebels other than they're against Assad too.

I think having a peaceful Middle East is in our national interest. I think encouraging the development of friendly, democratic nations in the Middle East is in our national interest. I think stopping state-sponsored violence against civilians is in the interest of human rights. I think that those are some of many potential justifications that could be used to support our actions, as moderate as they are, in Syria. Whether or not our current strategy will lead to any of those goals is something worth discussing, but I don't think you can write off violence and unrest in any part of the globe as not affecting the US or our interests.

Note that I am not claiming that the mere demonstration of affect justifies US action, just that it's pretty easy to come up with a reason that an action would be in our nation's interest.
 
2012-08-02 01:50:26 PM  

penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.


oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.


You sure figured out a lot about me based on a two sentence post. Imagine what you could tell me about myself if you knew I was a Cancer! Do you do this professionally, or is this something you do pro bono?

/Actually I get all my news from Michael Moore's ass-drippings.
//They teach me how to force you to gay marry a turtle, buy every poor person in the country a ferrari and pay for it with YOUR tax dollars.
 
2012-08-02 01:51:38 PM  

qorkfiend: Sometimes the straw doesn't have to be too heavy. I bet if you told the Europeans in 1913 that in one year, they'd all be at each other's throats over the actions of the Serbians, they would have laughed in your face.


Well, that's kind of the whole point of the fable.

But as historically relevant as your example is, is there any extant reason to believe that Syria is likely to spark a larger US/Russian conflict? Or are you just making the fine point that sometimes large events have small sparks?

In which case, thank you for your insight.
 
2012-08-02 01:54:23 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Leeds: The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

I agree. Scooter Libby should've been hung.

/his wife would agree.


Hanging is an appropriate punishment for treason. However, Dubya was only comfortable executing mentally retarded people who couldn't afford a decent defense.
 
2012-08-02 02:00:56 PM  

machoprogrammer: Skleenar: machoprogrammer: Reagan having the CIA help rebels: Democrats scream it is bad, Republicans scream it is good.

Obama having the CIA help rebels: Republicans scream it is bad, Democrats scream it is good.

Just more of the same shiat.

I know. It's EXACTLY the same. I mean, of course, if you ignore the whole "Executive branch providing funding to the rebels in direct contravention of duly enacted legislation" thing.

but, I mean, that's at the END of the first paragraph in the wiki. No one has that long of an attention span.

I was actually referring to the whole Central and South America things that were pulled during the 80s, but nice try. Iran-Contra was bad no matter how you pull it.


Well, there was also the fact that much of the "Central and South America things" (which, by the way were more frequently about supporting existing governments than supporting rebels: Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador vs Nicaragua) was really about Reagan trying to fight a glorious crusade against the Soviets in the (real, this time) Cold War. This overarching strategy meant that we often were aligning ourselves, against what could be described as our immediate national interests and certainly against human rights, with many unsavory groups.

From that perspective, criticism over Syria still looks pretty different from a "both sides are bad" analysis
 
2012-08-02 02:10:52 PM  

BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.


oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.

You sure figured out a lot about me based on a two sentence post. Imagine what you could tell me about myself if you knew I was a Cancer! Do you do this professionally, or is this something you do pro bono?

/Actually I get all my news from Michael Moore's ass-drippings.
//They teach me how to force you to gay marry a turtle, buy every poor person in the country a ferrari and pay for it with YOUR tax dollars.


right. you got me. you're right... we should totally get involved in Syria. Perhaps boots on the ground is the next step.
 
2012-08-02 02:17:42 PM  

penetrating_virga: right. you got me. you're right... we should totally get involved in Syria. Perhaps boots on the ground is the next step.


/eyeroll
 
2012-08-02 02:32:22 PM  

penetrating_virga: Oh yeah... all of the world's problems started in 2000.


Naw. They started 1/20/1981. They just didn't come to a head until 11/2000
 
2012-08-02 02:37:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Deftoons: and it creates new enemies when the US already has made plenty.

What new enemies has it created?

Deftoons: I'd rather look for ways to help them privately and voluntarily.

What does "privately and voluntarily" mean, in this case?


I think he means like the international brigades during the Spanish Civil War.
I'm against the drone strikes (intentionally targeting civilians isn't anything to support), and I'm wary of Libya and Syria as a repeat of 1953 Iran (why Iran hates us so much) and 1980s-era supporting the Taliban against the Soviets. Granted, Assad is not democratically elected and I'm sure the reason for supporting this is something besides the theft of a country's natural resources (I hope anyway) and we're not supporting rebels against invaders, we're supporting rebels against a domestic dictatorship (it's pretty close though, the US backing Al Qaeda/the Taliban against the Soviets/Russians).
But this is the kind of meddling that farked us in the past. I guess it depends on which way your scale tips on the consequences of blowback versus consequences of letting someone else fill an opportunity, and whether or not your scale tips towards believing our intervention is for mostly humanitarian reasons versus mostly realpolitik/same old gangstering.
 
2012-08-02 02:39:44 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Leeds: The "best way to handle this" is to have an independent investigation into the leaks, followed by public hangings of the traitors in the White House.

I agree. Scooter Libby should've been hung.

/his wife would agree.


Frankly, you may actually be right.

The point is that traitors hurt the country, regardless of their party or race or whatever else you want to use to define them.

And so far this year, the traitor(s) in the current White House have dealt an average of one major blow to our county every month. I think we all know that the Stuxnet one was the worst, but even this latest leak now ties Obama's hands in relations with both Russia and Syria, something the typical American does not want to see happen.

What we need to do is root them out and make examples of them. Obama has chosen to do none of that which is why the conspiracy theorists believe that he is the traitor. Luckily for him, all he has to do to fix this problem is to stop protecting the traitor(s) and allow the investigations to occur.
 
2012-08-02 02:48:56 PM  
I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.
 
2012-08-02 02:57:58 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: I'd like to know how much money this is costing us. And the end game? Getting the brotherhood in there? Or is this a pregame to Iran?

Where have all the anti-war people gone?

Money!!!!


the pre-game to Iran left port already.
 
2012-08-02 03:09:43 PM  

verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.


You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.
 
2012-08-02 03:43:59 PM  

Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.


actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?
 
2012-08-02 04:04:29 PM  

unexplained bacon: what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?


Do the leaks make Obama look worse, or look better.......the leak may be of a political nature......highly calculated.
 
2012-08-02 04:05:01 PM  

unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?


Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.
 
2012-08-02 04:16:56 PM  

Gotfire: This shiat never ends well


Just go look at a map of how much territory these rebels control. Assad isn't going anywhere unless we intervene to kill him. Having said that, it's probably likely that the recent spat of assassinations and bombing against Assad officials is, if not being carried out with the direct support of Western espionage services, at the very least being done with our advice. And you're right; when one of our presidents decides to play James Bond and use the CIA to overthrow some country it doesn't end well; we've pretty much got a perfect record of failure in that field. The court's still out on Libya of course, but regardless of how that turns out our intervention there has certain led to some major unintended consequences in Mali and other neighboring states.
 
2012-08-02 04:23:42 PM  

Leeds: unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?

Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.


"mole"? Obama's admin chose to leak that as a brag and a threat; it didn't slip out unofficially. I'd wager that something like 99% of the "leaks" that show up in our news are government officials using anonymity to make falsely positive -unchallengeable- claims about the illegal activity they engage in without running the risk of criminal liability. Do you believe it was "moles" behind all those leaks about the drone assassination program? I guess that makes Obama a "traitor" for "leaking" the successful assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki then, don't it?
 
2012-08-02 04:48:27 PM  

Heron: Leeds: unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?

Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.


"mole"? Obama's admin chose to leak that as a brag and a threat; it didn't slip out unofficially. I'd wager that something like 99% of the "leaks" that show up in our news are government officials using anonymity to make falsely positive -unchallengeable- claims about the illegal activity they engage in without running the risk of criminal liability. Do you believe it was "moles" behind all those leaks about the drone assassination program? I guess that makes Obama a "traitor" for "leaking" the successful assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki then, don't it?


If he is behind the illegal dissemination of classified information, then the answer is "yes." There's no grey area there.

But I suspect he's not quite that stupid. Even if he is the traitor he'd have put someone else up to actually doing the deed. He fears the hangman as much as any other red blooded person.
 
2012-08-02 04:50:02 PM  
Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone

Be vewy vewy qwiet. We're suppoating Sywian webows.
 
2012-08-02 05:04:49 PM  

Leeds: Heron: Leeds: unexplained bacon: Leeds: verbaltoxin: I can pretty much sum up the opposition to this in two ways.

One group's the Fark Libertarians who are non-interventionist as a rule, and actually mean it. Debate them however you want. I could care less.

The other group are Fark Conservatives who just don't like it because Obama's doing it. They're suddenly "non-interventionalist" after 10 years of being all for two, trillion dollar wars.

You're way off base. The issue at hand is the traitor that the Obama administration is choosing not to go after, prosecute and hang.

Almost no one is upset that we're taking sides in this conflict, they're upset that we just lost the ability to posture diplomatically because of the traitor(s).

Feel free to read the thread.

actually quite a few fark righties were upset, or at least acted like it.

what make you think Obama isn't going after the leak perp?

Because of his public silence on the topic.

And because he fought against the Congressional probes into this year's previous leaks he's already proved himself unwilling to do anything about the traitor(s). He's literally told his boys not to cooperate.

But I would applaud him if he actually did do the right thing, even well after the fact. The Stuxnet one is MASSIVE though. The mole in his administration literally admitted that the US has fired off the first volleys in the upcoming World Cyber war. That opens us up to legal issues we haven't even thought of yet.


"mole"? Obama's admin chose to leak that as a brag and a threat; it didn't slip out unofficially. I'd wager that something like 99% of the "leaks" that show up in our news are government officials using anonymity to make falsely positive -unchallengeable- claims about the illegal activity they engage in without running the risk of criminal liability. Do you believe it was "moles" behind all those leaks about the drone assassination program? I guess that makes Obama a "traitor" for "leaking" the successful assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki then, don't it?

If he is behind the illegal dissemination of classified information, then the answer is "yes." There's no grey area there.

But I suspect he's not quite that stupid. Even if he is the traitor he'd have put someone else up to actually doing the deed. He fears the hangman as much as any other red blooded person.


Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are abject to laws. That's precious!
 
2012-08-02 05:08:49 PM  

Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!


They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.
 
2012-08-02 05:12:50 PM  

Leeds: Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!

They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.


Uh-huh. That'll be the Romney administrations first priority trying all the US's war criminals for their various crimes. Yep yep.
 
2012-08-02 05:26:00 PM  

penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: BeesNuts: penetrating_virga: EyeballKid: penetrating_virga: Obama is involving us in another civil war? Gat dammit! Where is the outrage?! If a Republican had done this there would be a sea of accusations about being a war monger, funding the war machine and how the President was personally benefiting from defense contracts. Fncking hypocrites.

And which company that Obama worked at previously as CEO is getting no-bid contracts into Syria?

I know this may come as a shock to you, but both sides aren't the same. Grab some smelling salts, and be sure to fall near the fainting couch.

This stinks of the same smell as our other military conflicts over the last decade. Fainting couch? clever Cletus, you need to wake the fnck up.

I mean, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what this stinks like... if you have literally not read or heard a single thing about Syria lately.


oh sure.. saddam hussein was a benevolent leader.. and afghanistan wasn't brewing a civil war between sunni vs shia.. ...and you believe everything CNN reports right? Especially when the last line of the report is "this story could not be verified." Your ignorance is showing.

You sure figured out a lot about me based on a two sentence post. Imagine what you could tell me about myself if you knew I was a Cancer! Do you do this professionally, or is this something you do pro bono?

/Actually I get all my news from Michael Moore's ass-drippings.
//They teach me how to force you to gay marry a turtle, buy every poor person in the country a ferrari and pay for it with YOUR tax dollars.

right. you got me. you're right... we should totally get involved in Syria. Perhaps boots on the ground is the next step.


That's kind of my entire point. Bush policy was to put boots on the ground. Or more accurately, to automatically incorporate ground forces into his military planning. Obama policy hasn't indicated any particular predilection to get involved in any large scale ground invasion.

You said this smelled like Iraq/Afghanistan to you. I can respect that opinion, snark notwithstanding, but I disagree for a plethora of reasons. I won't outline em all or anything but for starters, the environment is entirely different in this case. We haven't been attacked so emotions are running pretty low compared to the run up to Afghanistan, which was pretty much a week long "debate" followed by troops marching across the country. As for Iraq, the run-up to Iraq was more of a PR campaign than an analysis of any sort. Internal memos even indicate that higher-ups in the planning sessions had talked about the inevitability of an Iraq invasion back in 2001. Before 9/11 even happened.

Nothing about Syria smells like that, to me.

Secondly, our dealings with the UN strike me as entirely different this go 'round, but I'll admit I'm not watching this story unfold exclusively with 100% dedication or anything. As I understand it, Damascus has been talking about Syrian chemical weapons in UN meetings for some time now, which culminated in a recent admission on the part of the Syrian government that they do in fact have chemical weapons "for national defense". This, again as I understand it, led to a followup in which they even said they would use them against other nations if need be. As one of like ... half a dozen countries who haven't signed on to the "let's not make VX gas anymore" treaty, that's kind of scary, I think. And many other nations also think that, apart from the obvious Israel. Less obvious are the ones mentioned in the article. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

So whereas we had the Colin Powell Saltshaker Samba on the run up to Iraq, here we have many allies of ours, who aren't really too keen on one another, all agreeing that Assad is a problem that needs... "solving."

Agree or disagree with the action? I'm not sure yet... and the jury's still out on whether this is even happening or not (I think?)

Just like the wars of the last decade? I have to disagree.
 
2012-08-02 05:28:58 PM  

Ned Stark: Leeds: Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!

They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.

Uh-huh. That'll be the Romney administrations first priority trying all the US's war criminals for their various crimes. Yep yep.


No, I bet he'll do the same as Bush did when he pardoned Clinton for his crimes.

But as I said before, there is plenty of evidence that there is a mole/traitor in the Obama White House. But there isn't much specific evidence as to who that traitor is because Obama is blocking the investigations that congress is seeking.
 
2012-08-02 07:44:58 PM  

Leeds: Ned Stark: Leeds: Ned Stark: Ah hahah ho hee hoo hooha he he ho ha.

You think president's are *subject to laws. That's precious!

They can't be tried in criminal courts until they step down from office.

This is potentially a motivating factor for Obama to win a second term.

Interesting point.

Uh-huh. That'll be the Romney administrations first priority trying all the US's war criminals for their various crimes. Yep yep.

No, I bet he'll do the same as Bush did when he pardoned Clinton for his crimes.

But as I said before, there is plenty of evidence that there is a mole/traitor in the Obama White House. But there isn't much specific evidence as to who that traitor is because Obama is blocking the investigations that congress is seeking.


Congress just wants to help right?
 
2012-08-03 05:18:51 AM  

RanDomino: LewDux
Seems reliable. Especially since people behind voltairenet claim that 9/11 was inside job

They're citing articles in mainstream German publications. If du kannst Deutsch lesen here's Hackensberger's blog.


Ich kann mit Google übersetzen Translate

it's blog that asks questions and provides the answer:
"If any part of the rebels hastily spoken of a massacre of innocent civilians? After all, you know that every other atrocity that the regime of President Bashar Assad is accused, she brings a Western-led military intervention a step closer.
 
2012-08-04 06:18:23 PM  

Moosecakes: iawai: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: This makes the third? fourth? high level security leak in the last four months...

When Obama promised transparency, he really meant that he would scapegoat whistleblowers.

When Obama promised a foreign policy of diplomacy, he really meant that if you got in the CIA's way he'd drone you without second thought.

It's the craziest thing, watching conservatives try to now be against government secrets and war. Especially because they are simultaneously for war with Iran and against leaks. Just the gosh darnedest thing I just can't wrap my head around it.


Would it help if I told you I wasn't conservative?

Obama would be more at home in the Republican Party than I would.
 
Displayed 332 of 332 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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