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  
•       •       •

36609 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 4:23 PM (1 year 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
 
2012-10-04 01:02:46 AM
Oh well, Turkey throws bombs, "looses badly", Syria "really" becomes a threat.
Turkey then requests the EU or Nato for assistance.
Presto, US comes in "to save lives and restore peace and democracy".
Bonus: already there.
US with Nato forces starts to "do stuff" with Syria, looses and calls in help - Iran
Stuff is thrown about, people die, bla bla bla Gordon Freeman bla bla and before you know it ...
Iran, losing, feels nervous, feels very threatened, flips molly switch and quickly runs into the shel---
(Guess he shouldn't have photoshopped those missile tests after all ...)

How's that playing out for you?
 
2012-10-04 01:22:54 AM

Kraftwerk Orange: [fullmetalpatriotblog.com image 400x300]


Dude. You rock.
 
2012-10-04 02:17:01 AM

Aigoo: vygramul: cc_rider: Damiit, WiseGuy, I didn't see your post.. Great Twisted minds think alike, I guess. :)

Anyhow, has anyone seen further confirmation this was definitely the work of Assad's troops? The guy is a evil monster, for sure, but I think we ought to look into this a little closer before we start having fantasies of storming into Syria with NATO troops.

Call me a suspicious Aloysius, but after the bullshiat we were sold about Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran, I would like to make sure this isn't something entirely different being used as an excuse for NATO to get around the Russia and Chinese veto. I have no trouble with protecting Turkey, and I hope Assad goes bye-bye, but I am not wishing to make a mockery of treaties and international law to do so.

I doubt this is some kind of Machiavellian plot. Turkey has a great deal invested in the status quo and would rather not see a change. They're paranoid over there that the US will intervene so that we can set up a Kurdish homeland. Which is weird because it requires someone overseas to think America gives fark all about some minority group without its own country.

Uh... we kinda sorta promised the Kurds protection from Saddam if they helped us in the first "let's kill the crazy desert dictator" and then left them to their own devices. They're a wee bit pissed (rightfully so, imo) that we smiled and waved as we left and they ended up in lovely SoDamn Insane-made mass graves. It's part of where that whole "hearts and minds" bullshiat comes from - they don't trust us as far as they can throw us, and I don't blame them one bit.

They should be paranoid because we tend to make promises like that in order to get the help we want... we just don't deliver if it's not in our best interests to do so (which it frequently is not). But if it turns out to be in our best interests, we will make it happen. After all, we helped get Saddam in power to begin with, and did a whole lot more meddling in that region over the ...


OK, so the Turks should be paranoid that we'll help out the Kurds because we screwed the Kurds over.

How does THAT make sense?
 
2012-10-04 03:12:22 AM

the money is in the banana stand: Slaxl: the money is in the banana stand: Slaxl: It's just as well Turkey retaliated, because that brought back to life all those who were killed in the initial attack and because retaliating is permitted in international law it would have been silly to waste that opportunity.

What a load of crap. It sounds like some douchebags in Syria did some crap with a mortar and Turkey just killed the nearest people it could and said "right, that's that then!", and walked away dusting off their hands.

As anyone who's followed attacks on Israel knows, these people set up shop in residential areas, fire their crap and leave, wait for the response, then come back with television cameras and go "oooh, unprovoked response on unarmed civilians".

People in that part of the world don't know the difference between revenge and justice, and that's why it will always be a shiat-hole.

So what's your solution to justice? Track down those responsible and kill them with a surgical strike? Have them "stand trial"? Do you just let them kill your citizens because you can't really stop it or find those responsible? Do you risk even MORE lives by securing justice?

There is no 'solution to justice', justice is the target, the destination, not something to be fixed. It's better to let a thousand guilty men go free than kill one innocent person in a retaliatory strike.

So then, let me ask you this. If these thousand guilty men surround themselves with civilians and you stand absolutely 0 chance of eliminating them or extricating them without casualties, they are free to do whatever they want correct? Sounds like an easy way to win a war, why don't we just use human shields for our troops? So are you condoning these men using civilians as shields exploiting those taking the moral high-ground? It is then therefore not possible to stop groups that employ these tactics.


The Geneva Conventions take into account the use of human shields. The attacking force must use alternative means if possible and feasible, but if the only reasonable means of obtaining the military objective will put the hostage lives at risk, they are not held responsible. The hostage takers are considered responsible for any injury and deaths to the hostages.
 
2012-10-04 03:28:31 AM

SevenizGud:
Do you remember OBL? Why did OBL hate America? It wasn't because he hated our freedoms, or hated our policies. OBL was a hero in Afghanistan resistance against the Vodaks.


Ehehe nice. I really like this term and how you used it to refer to the Russians.
 
2012-10-04 04:37:17 AM

vygramul: Heliodorus: Uh, they have been in a war with Kurdish separatists for over three decades. The possibility of part of Turkey breaking off is not paranoia. And before anyone from the US biatches about a Kurdish breakaway state, we had a long bloody civil war over the same issue.


/No the Civil war was not about freeing black people. It was about preventing the southern states from leaving the union. Slavery only enters as the reason the south wanted to leave in the first place.
//Also Lincoln's emancipation proclamation didn't free the slaves. It was unenforceable political propaganda.
/// Slavery is the ideology of assholes.

I didn't say they were paranoid about Kurds. I said they are paranoid about the US (or anyone else) giving a shiat about Kurds.


Oops, sorry. Started the debate drinking game early :D. I meant to add the part about the Kurds being a modern human rights issue that could gain international movement via video/pictures of Kurdish petitioning after Turkey over extends one of their counter attacks; unlike the Armenian genocide which happened when photography was still in it's infancy, and modern geopolitical concerns means it is better to play along with Turkey and pretend it did not happen.

intelligent comment below:


Not sure if serious, or just "educated" in public schools

/for kicks go look at the difference between the confederate constitution and the American... the only difference is the legality of slavery



Again, was getting a pre-debate buzz, forgot some explanation. As I said, slavery was the reason that the south decided to secede from the union. It could have been any reason, the south could have instead said they were leaving because they didn't like northern beer, Lincoln looked better without a beard, they don't like Catholics, ________ (fill with whatever reason), etc. Any reason the south gave doesn't matter; we went to war, and will again if those sovereign citizens band together and try, for the simple fact that states aren't allowed to leave. 

A lot of people seem to think that we went to war specifically to end slavery, which is not true.
 
2012-10-04 08:26:46 AM

intelligent comment below: 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.


All wars in the middle east have our economics at stake because they involve half a dozen OPEC members at any given moment and we are still an oil driven nation.

I was all for being involved with this war if we could have gotten in early and kept it from becoming a NATO driven WWIII risking clusterfark. Now, under our enlightened foreign policy of "sit back and wait", its devolved into exactly the kind of civil war we're always supposed to avoid.

...and we're being hated for NOT interfering?
Due to the lack of consistency here, I suspect we're going to get hated no matter what we do. So there isn't much of a difference between the old plan and the new plan except for the lack of control.

This is the part where the president is supposed to stick to his guns and ride the bull without having a hand on the saddle.
 
2012-10-04 08:43:18 AM

OnlyM3: The "logic" *scoff* of Fark's moon-bats always entertains.

Any nation other than USA or Israel that retaliates when enemies shell and attack civilians it is completely just.

When Israel retaliates against islamists that shell and attack civilians, the "dirty jews" should be thrown into the nearest ovens.


Came here to point this out. Glad I'm not the only one who notices it.
 
2012-10-04 10:04:19 AM
Subby, go back and actually read your headline. "As God IS my witness" - Really?

As God as my witness I thought you farkers could use correct grammar.
 
2012-10-04 10:18:04 AM

sdromeo: Subby, go back and actually read your headline. "As God IS my witness" - Really?

As God as my witness I thought you farkers could use correct grammar.


Whoops. I farked up.
 
2012-10-04 01:59:50 PM

mjohnson71: So has Fox News started blaming Obama for this yet?


The comments in TFA are going at it hammers and tongs. My fav is this:

Gene Miller
I suspect that the mortar fire came at the direction of the Obama administration who is funding and otherwise directing the rebels.
5 votes
#2.6 - Wed Oct 3, 2012 4:46 PM EDT
 
2012-10-04 02:06:38 PM
Gotta love the rule that the only just war is one where the US stands no economic gain according to conspiracy theorists. Which would be... Hm. No nation ever.
 
2012-10-04 02:36:32 PM

way south: All wars in the middle east have our economics at stake because they involve half a dozen OPEC members at any given moment and we are still an oil driven nation.



And now you know why the world hates you.

Every country is "oil driven" but it's only Americans who demand paying so little for it

way south: I suspect we're going to get hated no matter what we do.



Nope. Only when you fight wars that only benefit you economically while trying to hide it in humanitarian rhetoric and prop up evil dictators like Assad, the Taliban and Saddam in the first place.
 
2012-10-04 02:37:39 PM

Thallone1: OnlyM3: The "logic" *scoff* of Fark's moon-bats always entertains.

Any nation other than USA or Israel that retaliates when enemies shell and attack civilians it is completely just.

When Israel retaliates against islamists that shell and attack civilians, the "dirty jews" should be thrown into the nearest ovens.

Came here to point this out. Glad I'm not the only one who notices it.



Can you point out who in here has ever defended Assad and shelling civilians? I think the majority of people here have tried making an argument that American shouldn't get involved but it is a humanitarian crisis.
 
2012-10-04 03:20:27 PM

SurelyShirley: You sound tough. I assume, you're Marine Infantry right? I mean, if you want to "kill some dirtbags", you would want to be right there in the shiat, right?


THIS.

Farking chickenhawks
 
2012-10-04 03:50:41 PM

intelligent comment below: And now you know why the world hates you.


No.
What I know is that you are dissatisfied with the way things were and the way things have changed under the current president. Also that you'll probably continue to be unsatisfied under any solution you propose.
Because in the end it isn't about solutions, its about finding someone to blame for problems that any nation could solve.

Every country is "oil driven" but it's only Americans who demand paying so little for it

All nations want to pay less and will do whatever they can to make that happen. Its just a fact that we can do more because we are a superpower.
When things go wrong, people look to us to fix it or blame us for not fixing it.

Either way, its not our issue this time.
Blame the Russians for not disciplining their dog or blame the UN for not doing more than typing up angry memos.
Don't blame us when we're finally taking the back seat role everyone says we're supposed to.
 
2012-10-04 03:52:21 PM

intelligent comment below: Every country is "oil driven" but it's only Americans who demand paying so little for it


No other country has the same transportation infrastructure requirements. US has far less population density than any other industrialized country. The EU has 504M people in a 4.3M km^2 land mass. The US has 315M people in a 9.8M km^2 land mass.
 
2012-10-04 05:09:44 PM

clyph: No other country has the same transportation infrastructure requirements. US has far less population density than any other industrialized country. The EU has 504M people in a 4.3M km^2 land mass. The US has 315M people in a 9.8M km^2 land mass.


Which is why it's ironic the EU regulates car emissions more than America

The US has built its nation off the idea of cheap reliable energy, and if you don't want to change for the planet and to prepare then fine, but don't be surprised if it bites you in the ass in a few years.
 
2012-10-04 05:10:48 PM

way south: All nations want to pay less and will do whatever they can to make that happen. Its just a fact that we can do more because we are a superpower.



False. No other country has ever had close to the amount of emissions used per person.

way south: Don't blame us when we're finally taking the back seat role everyone says we're supposed to.



Taking a back seat because it doesn't benefit you economically... and then you sit back and wonder why the world hates you
 
2012-10-04 06:09:18 PM

intelligent comment below: The US has built its nation off the idea of cheap reliable energy, and if you don't want to change for the planet and to prepare then fine, but don't be surprised if it bites you in the ass in a few years.


I'm not saying the US doesn't need to invest in renewable energy and more efficient forms of transportation. What I am saying is that EU style solutions won't always work in the US due to the geographical differences. Only part of the US that is remotely comparable to the EU is the northeast (DC-NY-Boston) corridor.
 
2012-10-04 09:55:27 PM

clyph: I'm not saying the US doesn't need to invest in renewable energy and more efficient forms of transportation. What I am saying is that EU style solutions won't always work in the US due to the geographical differences. Only part of the US that is remotely comparable to the EU is the northeast (DC-NY-Boston) corridor.



Pushing for higher fuel efficiency standards is one obvious thing. Another is better public transportation, rail networks, high speed rail, etc. All things conservatives complain about "cost money" and car companies despise.
 
2012-10-05 11:33:49 AM

intelligent comment below: rail networks, high speed rail


Rail is one specific euro-style solution that doesn't work so well in the US due to the significantly larger intra-city distances. The only place in the US that rail is practical is the NE corridor. Acela between DC and NYC is great, but that's the single example of rail I know in the US that doesn't suck.

I used to ride the MARC Penn line (which uses the same tracks as the Acela) and the service was slow and unreliable, and the Brunswick line out to Harper's Ferry is even worse. I'd love to see a useful commuter rail system in the DC metro area, but unless you live within ~5 miles of the I-95 corridor, MARC and VRE are a bad joke, and they're two of the BETTER commuter rail systems in the US. Taking the train should be FASTER than driving in rush hour traffic.
 
Displayed 22 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 »






Report