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.

(CBS News)   Hillary Clinton: The US will take unspecified actions if Syria crosses the line and uses chemical weapons. Subby guesses we will just mark it a zero and call the league offices   (cbsnews.com) divider line 92
    More: Interesting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, United States, Turkish military, officials told, Members of NATO, refugee camps, Syrians, State Department official  
•       •       •

2486 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Dec 2012 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 01:05:05 PM  

Aigoo: AKA, Secretary Clinton issues a strongly worded vague non-warning warning?


It is US policy to not specify how we would react to a WMD. If you have a problem, it's not with her.
 
2012-12-03 01:06:00 PM  

ManRay: keenerb: If Syria does use chemical weapons, i hope they stamp a big "Made in Iraq" marker on the side.

Isn't that where all of the WMDs were sent to right before we invaded Iraq?


Yeah, that's my point. The shiatstorm that would then be unleashed on the FreeRepublics/DemocraticUndergrounds of the world would be amazing to behold.
 
2012-12-03 01:07:22 PM  

The Bestest: well, the UN just announced they're pulling all non-essential staff, so something's up


Normally, being called "non-essential staff" would be mildly offensive, but I think I'd be thankful in this case.

/Suck it, "essential staff!"
 
2012-12-03 01:09:36 PM  

ManRay: keenerb: If Syria does use chemical weapons, i hope they stamp a big "Made in Iraq" marker on the side.

Isn't that where all of the WMDs were sent to right before we invaded Iraq?


I remember that was the right-wing talking point back then. let's just keep invading countries till we find them.
 
2012-12-03 01:12:59 PM  
If they start using chemical weapons can't the US just take a step back and let one of the world powers handle it for once?
 
2012-12-03 01:22:41 PM  
No nukes, but some these would be just fine  upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-03 01:23:51 PM  

whither_apophis: Assad, you're getting a drone.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 01:25:24 PM  
Syria is about to enter a world of pain.
 
2012-12-03 01:33:23 PM  

theorellior: internut scholar: Don't bring chemicals to a nuke fight.

You know, if you think about it, if you have an area contaminated by chemical or biological agents, a nuke would probably be the best way to decontaminate it. The fallout might be a problem, but let's think out of the box, here.


OK, I'll bite. A pretty big problem would be getting a nuclear explosion small enough to decontaminate that area with minimal collateral damage to non-contaminated areas. Sure, there's some organic spreading of biological agents, but I think it's mostly localized not too far from the target area. Still, I would think that localized decontamination, whether it be ground-based or air-based (spraying something that kills/neutralizes the agent) would be a better solution than nuking the area, clearing the now highly radioactive debris, and waiting out the rest of the fallout ala Chernobyl.

ArkPanda: Look at it this way: chemical weapons are so nasty that neither Hitler nor Stalin wanted to go there.


Hitler may have never used them in open combat, but I think a couple million Jews expecting to get a shower might disagree with your assertion.
 
2012-12-03 01:36:50 PM  

Samsquantch: Syria is about to enter a world of pain.


Keep your ugly farkin' goldbrickin' ass out of our beach community

/see also the Sarasota, FL "police brutality" link
 
2012-12-03 01:37:12 PM  
graphics.boston.com
Knows something about red lines.
 
2012-12-03 01:37:35 PM  

Samsquantch: Syria is about to enter a world of pain.


I can only imagine what's going to happen next.
 
2012-12-03 01:40:31 PM  

Bontesla: Nightsweat: Remember this is the president who said he'd go into Pakistan to whack bin Laden if necessary even without their permission and did it.
I don't hink I'd piss this guy off. He's no Internet tough guy.

But I really don't see how an escalation on their part changes the factors the US has been citing as an excuse for not participating. For example - the US has cited geography and a disorganized group of rebels as (some of the) reasons why intervention is problematic. A Syrian escalation doesn't necessarily change the geography nor does it change the rebel group structure.


You don't have to help the rebels to hurt the regime. Take out the Syrian air assets and maybe one of their ammo depots. Make it a no-fly zone. All that disadvantages the regime without giving overt support to any single rebel group.
 
2012-12-03 02:10:11 PM  

RoyHobbs22: Samsquantch: Syria is about to enter a world of pain.

I can only imagine what's going to happen next.


With the regime now losing aircraft to ground-to-air missiles, it's likely that they will need to change tactic
 
2012-12-03 02:13:35 PM  

SoupJohnB: /calmer than you, Dude

//calmer than you



In the middle of a heated disagreement (not an argument) this weekend, the GF started saying that when I got a little to animated. It cracked me up enough to derail everything and we went on about our business.
 
2012-12-03 02:23:03 PM  
I am completely sure Hillary is capable handling Syria.

Because after all, in the past she.... umm.... you know... that time.... uhhh....

OK, what has this woman ever done? Besides marry a guy who porks fat interns afterwards?
 
2012-12-03 02:23:51 PM  
Assad can gas all of Damascus and Obama isn't going to do shiat. He's too busy here sticking it to rich white people.
 
2012-12-03 02:31:36 PM  

Spare Me: Assad can gas all of Damascus and Obama isn't going to do shiat. He's too busy here sticking it to rich white people.


Did a fact touch you in a bad no-no place when you were little? And now you just can't stand to be around them anymore?
 
2012-12-03 03:08:25 PM  
what is "raise the price of gas" alex?
 
2012-12-03 03:19:24 PM  
Since those middle-easterners have trouble sometimes understanding what women say, allow me to translate:

"You're pretty insignificant to us at the moment. But if you do this bad thing you will get our attention in a bad way, and we will fark you up beyond recognition as a sovereign state."
 
2012-12-03 03:22:12 PM  

keenerb: Isn't that where all of the WMDs were sent to right before we invaded Iraq?

Yeah, that's my point. The shiatstorm that would then be unleashed on the FreeRepublics/DemocraticUndergrounds of the world would be amazing to behold.



That would be a M.Knight Shamalongadong level twist wouldn't it?
 
2012-12-03 03:25:25 PM  
1. Drone missile.

2. Cruise missile.

3. Aircraft strike.

4. Special task force to secure.
 
2012-12-03 03:31:20 PM  
They have weapons of mass destruction!

How do you know?

Uh, we looked at the receipt...

i174.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 03:32:50 PM  

whither_apophis: ArkPanda: Look at it this way: chemical weapons are so nasty that neither Hitler nor Stalin wanted to go there.

Well the Red Army was downwind of a million Germans eating cabbage three times a day...


When you're looking at Curtis LeMay across the Channel, and he's got several hundred bombers over occupied Europe at any given time, you don't give him an excuse to start mixing mustard gas in with the bombers' payloads.

Alternatively, if you've just spent a year and a half beating the Red Army back to within sight of Moscow, you don't give them an excuse to start shelling you with chlorine gas when they counterattack.

WMD are last resort weapons, because using them usually makes things worse for everybody, yourself included.
 
2012-12-03 04:47:49 PM  
If Asad's stupid enough to do this, we should do...nothing.

The more barbaric and inhumane the Syrian civil war becomes, the better object lesson it serves to the rest of the Arab world on why they should quit farking around and join the 21st century.
 
2012-12-03 05:11:36 PM  

Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 712x960]


that's pretty awesome, if that is real. What thread was that intended for?!?!?
 
2012-12-03 05:56:11 PM  
Hillary had to say it. Obama doesn't have the balls to.
 
2012-12-03 06:42:32 PM  

Profedius: Given Obama's track record he will likely stand back and do nothing preferring to allow other nations to handle it unless he is pressed into action like in Libya


How was Obama "pressed into action" in Libya? What pressure, specifically, was brought on him? Tell us who brought the pressure, why they brought the pressure, and the consequences for Obama if he didn't comply. I'll get the popcorn and wait for you to ex[plain to us how you imagine the world works.
 
2012-12-03 06:45:36 PM  

RoyHobbs22: Samsquantch: Syria is about to enter a world of pain.

I can only imagine what's going to happen next.


You can be pretty sure it won't happen on Shabbos.
 
2012-12-03 07:21:43 PM  
So Assad just regular bombing civilians forever is a-ok?
 
2012-12-03 08:02:03 PM  
Interesting video, but Madeline Albright has really let herself go. Her Hillary Clinton is dead on though.
 
2012-12-03 08:21:01 PM  

twfeline: Most of the world: "You send a WOMAN to do your forceful negotiating? Here are some flowers, now leave us so we can talk man stuff."


Most of the world is not the Medieval East. Many countries have or have had women Prime Ministers or Presidents.
 
2012-12-03 08:24:28 PM  

jbtilley: If they start using chemical weapons can't the US just take a step back and let one of the world powers handle it for once?


There is no other world power with that sort of muscle. The US pretty much could take on the entire rest of the world and win. Unless it's nuclear, in which case no one wins.
 
2012-12-03 08:27:08 PM  

Spare Me: Assad can gas all of Damascus and Obama isn't going to do shiat. He's too busy here sticking it to rich white people.


Oh spare me the partisan santorum. If Obama did get involved you'd be biatching about that as well.
 
2012-12-04 01:20:38 AM  

keenerb: If Syria does use chemical weapons, i hope they stamp a big "Made in Iraq" marker on the side.

Could you imagine if a made-in-Iraq chemical weapon was used by Syria to kill protesters? The internet might actually explode.


And a Bill of Lading signed by Ronald Reagan would be a sweet touch.
 
2012-12-04 08:53:11 AM  

Mouser: The more barbaric and inhumane the Syrian civil war becomes, the better object lesson it serves to the rest of the Arab world on why they should quit farking around and join the 21st century.


Like the Arab dictator spring in Egypt? The brutal Arabs kill those who act like you suggest they should. It's tragic for the vast majority. =[
 
2012-12-04 09:39:39 AM  
But remember, Bush getting rid of Saddam because he gassed his own people was wrong, but since Obama is doing it to Assad it is ok.
 
2012-12-04 02:10:33 PM  

keenerb: If Syria does use chemical weapons, i hope they stamp a big "Made in Iraq" marker on the side.

Could you imagine if a made-in-Iraq chemical weapon was used by Syria to kill protesters? The internet might actually explode.


Christ, would you let it go already? We invaded Iraq nearly 10 years ago, and there were no chemical weapons.

But yeah, maybe we're going to find chemical weapons from Iraq in Syria. Or maybe Obama had Ambassador Stevens killed because he was going to reveal where the weapons really are. Or... meh, I don't care. Believe whatever the hell you want. Just stop voting, so that your denial of objective reality stops hurting me.
 
2012-12-04 02:13:08 PM  

Bullseyed: But remember, Bush getting rid of Saddam because he gassed his own people was wrong, but since Obama is doing it to Assad it is ok.


I think you've managed to achieve some sort of record for the most incorrect facts in one sentence. You've reached some sort of critical fail density, where if you got anything else wrong the universe would collapse on you.
 
2012-12-04 08:09:31 PM  

Bullseyed: But remember, Bush getting rid of Saddam because he gassed his own people was wrong, but since Obama is doing it to Assad it is ok.


I thought Obama was just an empty suit who isn't doing anything.

Now, as for Bush the minor. President Bush led the US and its allies into a war that resulted in a six figure number of deaths and countless more lives ruined. Not to mention the damage that has been done to the US economy as a result of increased debt to finance the war. This was mass murder as well as economic suicide and it was all justified with what turned out to be bullshiat. Lies. It was never about Saddam gassing his own people - the rogue administration did not even try to make it look like that.

This in my opinion makes Bush either a gullible fool who was duped by sinister elements of his administration, or perhaps he is sinister himself. Either way, attempting to equate Obama to the likes of Bush is extremely dishonorable. Anyone who does so should be ashamed.
 
2012-12-05 12:22:51 PM  

kg2095: Bullseyed: But remember, Bush getting rid of Saddam because he gassed his own people was wrong, but since Obama is doing it to Assad it is ok.

I thought Obama was just an empty suit who isn't doing anything.

Now, as for Bush the minor. President Bush led the US and its allies into a war that resulted in a six figure number of deaths and countless more lives ruined. Not to mention the damage that has been done to the US economy as a result of increased debt to finance the war. This was mass murder as well as economic suicide and it was all justified with what turned out to be bullshiat. Lies. It was never about Saddam gassing his own people - the rogue administration did not even try to make it look like that.

This in my opinion makes Bush either a gullible fool who was duped by sinister elements of his administration, or perhaps he is sinister himself. Either way, attempting to equate Obama to the likes of Bush is extremely dishonorable. Anyone who does so should be ashamed.


i172.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-05 07:37:02 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: kg2095: Bullseyed: But remember, Bush getting rid of Saddam because he gassed his own people was wrong, but since Obama is doing it to Assad it is ok.

I thought Obama was just an empty suit who isn't doing anything.

Now, as for Bush the minor. President Bush led the US and its allies into a war that resulted in a six figure number of deaths and countless more lives ruined. Not to mention the damage that has been done to the US economy as a result of increased debt to finance the war. This was mass murder as well as economic suicide and it was all justified with what turned out to be bullshiat. Lies. It was never about Saddam gassing his own people - the rogue administration did not even try to make it look like that.

This in my opinion makes Bush either a gullible fool who was duped by sinister elements of his administration, or perhaps he is sinister himself. Either way, attempting to equate Obama to the likes of Bush is extremely dishonorable. Anyone who does so should be ashamed.

[i172.photobucket.com image 379x319]


So? So??? You provincial putz!
 
Displayed 42 of 92 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report