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 332
    More: Obvious, Syrians, Free Syrian Army, clandestine operations, Qatari, United Nations Security Council, Syrian opposition, Assad, Damascus  
•       •       •

12103 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2012 at 12:26 AM (2 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!!'
 
Displayed 50 of 332 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report