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.

(NBC News) NewsFlash As God is my witness, I thought Turkey wouldn't retaliate   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 322
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

36614 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 4:23 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 05:00:27 PM  
just some perspective, the colored area is the max range of Syrian missiles(~500 miles). They most likely have less than 100 missiles with the range to hit Istanbul and would have to move them the coast/border to get there.

i47.tinypic.com 

Question if Assad thinks his goose is cooked will he fire them at either Turkey or Israel to try to flare up the region
 
2012-10-03 05:01:04 PM  
Does anyone know when the Strongly Worded LetterTM from the UN Security Council is due to arrive in Damascus?
 
2012-10-03 05:01:11 PM  

dumbobruni: intelligent comment below: This is what happens when America does nothing to solve real humanitarian crises and drags its feel complaining about Russia and China blocking in the UN. Sure didn't stop them in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or or or.

if you advocate helping Al-Qaeda, which is part of the resistance forces, be my guest.



Sure it is, because that's what Faux News is telling you


Girion47: intelligent comment below: This is what happens when America does nothing to solve real humanitarian crises and drags its feel complaining about Russia and China blocking in the UN. Sure didn't stop them in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or or or.

It isn't our job to meddle in disputes between other countries, thats what gets us attacked by terrorists.



No, what gets you attacked by terrorists is only invading countries for simple minded reasons and leaving everyone hanging once you're done propping up a puppet government that serves you
 
2012-10-03 05:01:56 PM  

Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Did I miss something that would make the headline funny?

The '70s apparently.

Missed those.

Here you go: Link


Thanks?
 
2012-10-03 05:02:05 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: intelligent comment below: This is what happens when America does nothing to solve real humanitarian crises and drags its feel complaining about Russia and China blocking in the UN. Sure didn't stop them in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or or or.

Your comment isn't intelligent.

Do you want to get into a shooting war with China and Russia?



You think they would be stupid enough to go to war with America over Syria? And you question my intelligence? How rich.
 
2012-10-03 05:02:33 PM  

Cythraul: Yeah, but Turkey is kinda the red-headed-stepchild of NATO. Do we really have to rush in and defend them?


You don't understand. NATO will have to defend Syria from Turkey.
 
2012-10-03 05:02:38 PM  
Istanbul not Constanople.
 
2012-10-03 05:02:41 PM  

Urinal Cake Mix: My sister-in-law is in Turkey this week. Ruh roh.


Here's hoping she stays safe, dude.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:02 PM  

JackieRabbit: Does anyone know when the Strongly Worded LetterTM from the UN Security Council is due to arrive in Damascus?


not going to happen, Russia and China keep blocking them. They have lost one dictatorial ally too many.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:05 PM  

JackieRabbit: Does anyone know when the Strongly Worded LetterTM from the UN Security Council is due to arrive in Damascus?


The letter probably begins with, "Oh, you!"
 
2012-10-03 05:03:27 PM  
WW III by proxy over the middle east? Discuss.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:37 PM  
The dearth of references to Obama in this thread is quite heartening.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:47 PM  

EyeballKid: Cythraul: Yeah, but Turkey is kinda the red-headed-stepchild of NATO. Do we really have to rush in and defend them?

You don't understand. NATO will have to defend Syria from Turkey.


The Emperor is sending two legions of Sardaukar.
 
2012-10-03 05:03:58 PM  

Bruxellensis: Did I miss something that would make the headline funny?


Did you miss ever seeing WKRP? (See post just a few clicks above yours.)
 
2012-10-03 05:04:13 PM  

WarszawaScream: Glass parking lot? Anybody?


Nah, man. Syrian women are hot!
 
2012-10-03 05:04:14 PM  

Corvus: WW III by proxy over the middle east? Discuss.


yes, the next war will be fought by remote control robots
 
2012-10-03 05:04:39 PM  

BalugaJoe: EyeballKid: Cythraul: Yeah, but Turkey is kinda the red-headed-stepchild of NATO. Do we really have to rush in and defend them?

You don't understand. NATO will have to defend Syria from Turkey.

The Emperor is sending two legions of Sardaukar.


Who in this conflict represents The Beast, Rabban?
 
2012-10-03 05:05:58 PM  

way south: Wait... WHAT?!
I thought we weren't supposed to get involved in every two bit war in the middle east because it all boiled down to trading blood for oil and becoming needlessly entangled in the local politics.

We've avoided this clustefark and now its about to become a problem for millions of people who aren't us.
Why should we change that now?



You don't need to be entangled in local politics, how entangled is NATO in Syria?

Humanitarian missions are important and much needed in unstable regions.

But America only rushes in when economics are at stake, and turns a blind eye to mass murder for as long as possible. That's one of the reasons why the world hates America.
 
2012-10-03 05:06:06 PM  

stir22: so...how long until Syria uses its chemical weapons on someone?


Chemical weapons on Turkey would be a monumentally bad idea as it potentially could result in the use of nuclear weapons by the US or UK.
 
2012-10-03 05:06:11 PM  
""We are outraged that the Syrians have been shooting across the border. We are very regretful about the loss of life that has occurred on the Turkish side," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in remarks Wednesday during an appearance with Kazakhstan's visiting foreign minister."

Well, as long as we're outraged then OK.

The economy and foreign affairs are in shambles and this guy is going to get four more years......

Unbelievable.
 
2012-10-03 05:06:11 PM  

Farkeld: imontheinternet: Farkeld: imontheinternet: kvinesknows: what kind of damage did Turkey retaliatory attack do? that seems unclear to me

Turkey's a NATO member. If they invoke Article 5, all member nations are obligated to assist in a military strike.

That's not quite how Article 5 works. The following link is talking about Article 5 in reference to terrorist attacks, but much of what's said is applicable to the current situation.

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

From that link:

"Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".

The problem goes deeper than a single mortar. Syria is under Russian protection. If the violence escalates into a shooting war, the Russians may step in to protect Syria. When the US deployed carrier groups toward Iran and Syria (IIRC last summer), the Russians positioned their carrier between Syria and the American forces. The Port of Tarsus in Syria is Russia's only friendly port in the region. They're not just going to walk away from it.

If the Russians make a move against Turkey, the choice will be to disregard Article 5 and let Turkey get its ass kicked or step in and have a direct confrontation with the Russians..

Hmm, I think your scenario is a bit far fetched. I doubt the Russians would risk a military conflict with NATO over Syria.


he would risk immediate domestic upheaval.

as it is, Russia is experiencing capital flight, growing inflation, and a fast-shrinking trade surplus (will be a deficit in 2 years)
 
2012-10-03 05:06:41 PM  

Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Did I miss something that would make the headline funny?

The '70s apparently.

Missed those.

Here you go: Link

Thanks?


You're welcome?
 
2012-10-03 05:06:43 PM  

Farkeld: Hmm, I think your scenario is a bit far fetched. I doubt the Russians would risk a military conflict with NATO over Syria.


I admit that's a lot of risk to take, but Putin smashed Georgia and annexed territory in '08 with only a tiny fist shaking from NATO. He might think he can bully Turkey into backing off.

These things can spiral out of control quickly. Ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
 
2012-10-03 05:06:43 PM  
www.sectalk.com

/Can never be repeated enough!
 
2012-10-03 05:07:04 PM  
Calm down folks. It's just a bump in the road.
 
2012-10-03 05:07:06 PM  
I hope the Israelis took out most their chemical weapons with those airstrikes they did a few years ago.
 
2012-10-03 05:07:21 PM  

cchris_39: The economy and foreign affairs are in shambles



Neither are true, but keep pushing that narrative
 
2012-10-03 05:07:22 PM  

JackieRabbit: Does anyone know when the Strongly Worded LetterTM from the UN Security Council is due to arrive in Damascus?


The UN "strongly condemned the strike."

FTA
 
2012-10-03 05:07:55 PM  

Cythraul: JackieRabbit: Does anyone know when the Strongly Worded LetterTM from the UN Security Council is due to arrive in Damascus?

The letter probably begins with, "Oh, you!"


Just wait until your father gets home.
 
2012-10-03 05:08:13 PM  

zedster: Corvus: WW III by proxy over the middle east? Discuss.

yes, the next war will be fought by remote control robots


That's not what "by proxy" means.
 
2012-10-03 05:08:29 PM  

meanmutton: stir22: so...how long until Syria uses its chemical weapons on someone?

Chemical weapons on Turkey would be a monumentally bad idea as it potentially could result in the use of nuclear weapons by the US or UK.


Theoretically. In reality, I don't think we're going to start World War III over Turkey.
 
2012-10-03 05:08:56 PM  

Corvus: WW III by proxy over the middle east? Discuss.


they use TCP/IP?
 
2012-10-03 05:09:45 PM  

Farkeld: imontheinternet: Farkeld: imontheinternet: kvinesknows: what kind of damage did Turkey retaliatory attack do? that seems unclear to me

Turkey's a NATO member. If they invoke Article 5, all member nations are obligated to assist in a military strike.

That's not quite how Article 5 works. The following link is talking about Article 5 in reference to terrorist attacks, but much of what's said is applicable to the current situation.

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

From that link:

"Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".

The problem goes deeper than a single mortar. Syria is under Russian protection. If the violence escalates into a shooting war, the Russians may step in to protect Syria. When the US deployed carrier groups toward Iran and Syria (IIRC last summer), the Russians positioned their carrier between Syria and the American forces. The Port of Tarsus in Syria is Russia's only friendly port in the region. They're not just going to walk away from it.

If the Russians make a move against Turkey, the choice will be to disregard Article 5 and let Turkey get its ass kicked or step in and have a direct confrontation with the Russians..

Hmm, I think your scenario is a bit far fetched. I doubt the Russians would risk a military conflict with NATO over Syria.


Yeah, Russia will probably do what it can to dissuade NATO from intervening, but ultimately if push comes to shove Russia would back down. Getting involved in a full-scale conventional war with NATO is a bad idea for just about anyone. While they could probably defend Moscow against a conventional assault, it's highly improbable they'd be able to achieve any of their starting objectives. Nevermind the risk of it spiraling into a nuclear conflict.
 
2012-10-03 05:10:07 PM  

muck4doo: I hope the Israelis took out most their chemical weapons with those airstrikes they did a few years ago.


That's nobody's business but the Turks.
 
2012-10-03 05:10:32 PM  

indylaw: Theoretically. In reality, I don't think we're going to start World War III over Turkey.


No; it will be over Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, AND Turkey.
 
2012-10-03 05:10:46 PM  

Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Did I miss something that would make the headline funny?

The '70s apparently.

Missed those.

Here you go: Link

Thanks?

You're welcome?


...wait, that was from a tv show?

Son of a biatch! I remember my dad telling me that actually happened!

/I was young and stupid back then
//now I'm just stupid
///still find it hilarious
 
2012-10-03 05:11:04 PM  

Jubeebee: leevis: Diogenes: I'd say "this will end badly" but maybe it will expedite an end to Assad's murderous tyranny.

The only thing in Syria worse than Assad will be his successor.

That's assuming Syria is still a thing after all of this is over. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Yugoslavia style fracturing in the next few years.


Those guys would end up suicide bombing each other into nothingness.
 
2012-10-03 05:11:29 PM  

Spare Me: Calm down folks. It's just a bump in the road.


Most of me says the world is just too interconnected for anything beyond minor wars to occur from now on. But a tiny little part of me keeps thinking some big sh*t is going to go down sometime soon.
 
2012-10-03 05:11:58 PM  

Diogenes: I'd say "this will end badly" but maybe it will expedite an end to Assad's murderous tyranny.


Followed by becoming the latest subsidiary of Al Qaeda, Inc., for sure.
 
2012-10-03 05:12:37 PM  

styckx: Meh.. No farks left to give..


Sadly, this.

As far as the West is concerned, there is no "right" side of this conflict. No matter who prevails, it will be the same or worse. Leave them to their misery. I don't care anymore.
 
2012-10-03 05:13:35 PM  

Spare Me: Calm down folks. It's just a bump in the road.


We could always invade and be greeted as liberators, I suppose.
 
2012-10-03 05:13:59 PM  

Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Wise_Guy: Bruxellensis: Did I miss something that would make the headline funny?

The '70s apparently.

Missed those.

Here you go: Link

Thanks?

You're welcome?


I do appreciate the link. I just don't see the humor.
 
2012-10-03 05:14:12 PM  

Elandriel: Thanksgiving has taken on an altogether more ominous feeling.

Maybe I'll buy a ham this time.


Are you trying to start another riot by muslims?
 
2012-10-03 05:15:22 PM  

cchris_39: ""We are outraged that the Syrians have been shooting across the border. We are very regretful about the loss of life that has occurred on the Turkish side," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in remarks Wednesday during an appearance with Kazakhstan's visiting foreign minister."

Well, as long as we're outraged then OK.

The economy and foreign affairs are in shambles and this guy is going to get four more years......

Unbelievable.


Your suggestion?

*crickets*
 
2012-10-03 05:16:08 PM  
Its the American model on "How to be a regional power"

They are just enforcing the Syrian Doctrine.
 
2012-10-03 05:17:12 PM  

Farkeld: Hmm, I think your scenario is a bit far fetched. I doubt the Russians would risk a military conflict with NATO over Syria.


The real issue is: are the Russians stupid enough to take on Turkey? The Turks have a well-disciplined military trained and equipped to NATO standards, and they aren't scared of anything. Even without NATO, the Turks would seriously maul any putative Russian military adventure. Against the 1970s era Soviet Union, Turkey might be the underdog. Against the current state of the Russian military, I'd bet on the Turks.

It's getting to the point where it would probably be in Russia's best interest to either:
A) yank Assad out of harm's way and broker a new government friendly to Russia or
B) splatter Assad and his cronies all over the landscape and come in as the "friend and protector" of the rebels.

Continuing to support Assad doesn't appear to be a viable option for either the short or long term, from my sheltered position in a cozy armchair in my mom's basement half a world away.
 
2012-10-03 05:17:35 PM  

intelligent comment below: PC LOAD LETTER: intelligent comment below: This is what happens when America does nothing to solve real humanitarian crises and drags its feel complaining about Russia and China blocking in the UN. Sure didn't stop them in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya, or or or.

Your comment isn't intelligent.

Do you want to get into a shooting war with China and Russia?


You think they would be stupid enough to go to war with America over Syria? And you question my intelligence? How rich.


Russia got involved in WWI because of Serbia. Just saying.
 
2012-10-03 05:18:00 PM  
Release the Killbots.
 
2012-10-03 05:18:07 PM  

OgreMagi: Elandriel: Thanksgiving has taken on an altogether more ominous feeling.

Maybe I'll buy a ham this time.

Are you trying to start another riot by muslims?


He'd have to draw a cartoon of muhammad on it first.

/mmmm, muhammad ham....
 
2012-10-03 05:18:39 PM  
NATO article 5 invoked. Let's kill us some dirtbags.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 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 »
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