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.

(Telegraph)   US prepares to add the most important northern Syrian rebel group to its list of banned terrorist organizations. But it will have to fight alongside them if Assad uses chemical weapons. Why do we play World Police again?   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 56
    More: Stupid, United States, Syrians, Islamists, guerrilla war, National Coalition Party, chemical weapons, jihadists, sectarian violence  
•       •       •

405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 07:30:55 AM
Because
A) Syria is next to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and may attack or destabilize one or more of them.

B) Turkey is a NATO ally and the U.S. is required to come to their aid, Saudi provides oil to much of Western Europe and it would be bad for their economy, and therefore our economy, to have a major disruption in energy supplies, and no US politician dares ignore Israel if he wants to be reelected.
 
2012-12-06 09:29:42 AM
Because
A) We've spent a lot of money on these weapons, by golly we need an excuse to use them
B) Using chemical weapons on your own civilian population is an excuse most of the world can get behind

Also those things steve mentioned.
 
2012-12-06 10:23:30 AM
Why would we fight Assad again?  Oh, because its okay when your president is playing World Policeman. 
 
2012-12-06 10:50:12 AM
Why do we play World Police again?

Because the industrial military complex which is embedded into our political system controlling over 1/2 of our taxes makes money by selling bullets. Unexploded bombs are bad for business.
 
2012-12-06 10:50:40 AM
Why do we play World Police again?

Because our economy is based, in large part, on selling and using weapons.
 
2012-12-06 10:50:58 AM
I was gonna say because inoocent people are being killed but yeah, Saudi Arabia.
 
2012-12-06 10:51:59 AM
It's not as much "fighting alongside them" as it is "standing between them and the Syrian Army's stockpile of chemical weapons".
 
2012-12-06 10:51:59 AM
hey man, that 'fark yeah' after our name doesn't come free
 
2012-12-06 10:53:06 AM

Steve Zodiac: Because
A) Syria is next to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and may attack or destabilize one or more of them.

B) Turkey is a NATO ally and the U.S. is required to come to their aid, Saudi provides oil to much of Western Europe and it would be bad for their economy, and therefore our economy, to have a major disruption in energy supplies, and no US politician dares ignore Israel if he wants to be reelected.


Why did it take so long for the US to go to war with Germany? because the nazi's weren't farking with our cheap fuel.
 
2012-12-06 10:53:38 AM

Citrate1007: Why do we play World Police again?

Because the industrial military complex which is embedded into our political system controlling over 1/2 of our taxes makes money by selling bullets. Unexploded bombs are bad for business.


What huge swaths of government spending are you ignoring in order to bump up defense spending to "that "over half" milestone?
 
2012-12-06 10:55:26 AM
When we don't you end up with Rwanda. Intelligent intervention isn't a bad thing IMO. Just gotta follow Kenny Rogers advice from that Gambler song and apply it to foreign policy.
 
2012-12-06 10:56:01 AM
Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.
 
2012-12-06 10:56:14 AM
Because America. Fark yeah.
 
2012-12-06 10:57:30 AM

Steve Zodiac: Because
A) Syria is next to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and may attack or destabilize one or more of them.

B) Turkey is a NATO ally and the U.S. is required to come to their aid, Saudi provides oil to much of Western Europe and it would be bad for their economy, and therefore our economy, to have a major disruption in energy supplies, and no US politician dares ignore Israel if he wants to be reelected.


C) The State Department is staffed by Ivy League D&D players and the world is their mothers card table.
 
2012-12-06 10:57:51 AM

Giltric: Citrate1007: Why do we play World Police again?

Because the industrial military complex which is embedded into our political system controlling over 1/2 of our taxes makes money by selling bullets. Unexploded bombs are bad for business.

What huge swaths of government spending are you ignoring in order to bump up defense spending to "that "over half" milestone?



Indeed, it seems closer to a fifth according to wiki's numbers
 
2012-12-06 10:59:02 AM
Fark threw away my delicious pie (chart)
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-06 11:02:14 AM

divgradcurl: hey man, that 'fark yeah' after our name doesn't come free


Not to mention the "lick my butt and suck on my balls" is obviously going to cost you a little extra, as well! Don't worry, we take credit....
 
2012-12-06 11:03:57 AM
qorkfiend

It's not as much "fighting alongside them" as it is "standing between them and the Syrian Army's stockpile of chemical weapons".

this
 
2012-12-06 11:05:07 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.


Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.
 
2012-12-06 11:06:29 AM
Brass in the pocket?

farm5.staticflickr.com
Gonna lose my arms, gonna lose my legs, gonna lose my style, gonna lose my finger...
 
2012-12-06 11:09:49 AM
We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Or something.
 
2012-12-06 11:09:55 AM

Happy Hours: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.

Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.


Assad's killed what, tens of thousands with conventional weapons? I just find it weird that it's somehow more abhorrent to the world to use chemical weapons, rather than torturing children to death.
 
2012-12-06 11:10:21 AM

Happy Hours: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.

Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.


same with triangle knifes
 
2012-12-06 11:11:39 AM
Sometimes you have to work with bad guys to get other bad guys. What can I say - life is complicated.
 
2012-12-06 11:14:13 AM
I'm happy our soldiers are defending our country... in Iraq and Kuwait and Syria and Libya and Afghanistan and Somalia and Yemen and so on
 
2012-12-06 11:18:41 AM

I_C_Weener: Why would we fight Assad again?  Oh, because its okay when your president is playing World Policeman.


"Your" president deliberately deceived his own citizens -- and attempted to deceive the world -- into unilaterally initiating an unjustified ground war that lasted a decade or so. "Our" president is considering working with allies if and when Assad actually uses chemical weapons against his own people.

There is a difference and you know it.
 
2012-12-06 11:20:17 AM
More appeasement bullshiat from the Fartmander in Chief. You don't turn your enemies into allies by saving them from genocide. You do it with targeted drone strikes on them and their families.

Duh...
 
2012-12-06 11:23:19 AM
Why subby?

It's a very lucrative business. The most lucrative in the world in fact.
 
2012-12-06 11:28:49 AM
Because the world isn't a simplistic television show with 'good guys' and 'bad guys', but instead has lots of different parties acting in their own self interest?
 
2012-12-06 11:29:55 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Happy Hours: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.

Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.

Assad's killed what, tens of thousands with conventional weapons? I just find it weird that it's somehow more abhorrent to the world to use chemical weapons, rather than torturing children to death.


My guess is that people object because a) defensive and counter-offensive measures are nonexistent and b) unlike conventional weapons, the area of effect is unpredictable. You can wear a bulletproof vest, or hide in a bunker during an artillery barrage, or try to shoot down the drone or jet carrying the bombs and missiles, but there's nothing you can do once the biological and chemical agents are out. Once effective defenses are developed for them, their use will become more acceptable in warfare.

Also, unlike a conventional weapon, WMDs are specifically designed for wide dispersal and that's a big problem. Just think of how much effort the United States puts in to developing accurate weapons systems; I especially recall all the propaganda during Desert Storm about "smart bombs" and how they were so accurate we didn't have to blow up entire neighborhoods any more, we could just blow up a single building. A chemical agent or nuclear fallout in Syria could spread to many places that are not involved in the conflict, and that's something the major world actors would like to avoid.
 
2012-12-06 11:30:41 AM
It's a pretty smart long-term move. It makes sure that when the shiat hits the fan most of the organizations who might otherwise be funneling money to them will be sending it to the groups that we're cutting deals with instead.

(And I'd question the "most important northern Syrian rebel group" appellation. There are at least two other groups that could make the same claim)
 
2012-12-06 11:56:08 AM

qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Happy Hours: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.

Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.

Assad's killed what, tens of thousands with conventional weapons? I just find it weird that it's somehow more abhorrent to the world to use chemical weapons, rather than torturing children to death.

My guess is that people object because a) defensive and counter-offensive measures are nonexistent and b) unlike conventional weapons, the area of effect is unpredictable. You can wear a bulletproof vest, or hide in a bunker during an artillery barrage


I agree with Bashar's point thought. It is amazingly "interesting" what the US tolerates and what we do not tolerate. It's not just specifically bullets, it speaks to a broader point. People in Africa are raping babies to cure HIV. We sat by as 800,000 people were etxterminated in Rwanda, we sit by as hundreds of thousands die in Darfur. We sat and continue to sit by as various countries treat women like dogs or worse. No education, can't show your face in public, men basically do whatever the fark they want to them with no repercussions. That's all cool but once you get out the chemical weapon, that's too far.

It's... "interesting."
 
2012-12-06 12:02:52 PM
In the modern world, very few things are black-and-white, but when a country that's been trading shots with a NATO member and fighting a civil war starts firing missiles loaded with chemical weapons, it's time to step in. Intervention is a bad idea a lot of the time, but this call isn't even close.
 
2012-12-06 12:07:38 PM

Headso: When we don't you end up with Rwanda. Intelligent intervention isn't a bad thing IMO. Just gotta follow Kenny Rogers advice from that Gambler song and apply it to foreign policy.



Coward of the County?  So, lock the door and beat the crap out of the rapists in a bar room brawl.  I kind of like this new foreign policy.
 
2012-12-06 12:08:52 PM

imontheinternet: In the modern world, very few things are black-and-white, but when a country that's been trading shots with a NATO member and fighting a civil war starts firing missiles loaded with chemical weapons, it's time to step in. Intervention is a bad idea a lot of the time, but this call isn't even close.



US is a NATO member.  Iraq was firing on us daily.
 
2012-12-06 12:13:32 PM

I_C_Weener: imontheinternet: In the modern world, very few things are black-and-white, but when a country that's been trading shots with a NATO member and fighting a civil war starts firing missiles loaded with chemical weapons, it's time to step in. Intervention is a bad idea a lot of the time, but this call isn't even close.

US is a NATO member.  Iraq was firing on us daily.


Iraq never used chemical weapons. They didn't even have any.
 
2012-12-06 12:20:25 PM

I_C_Weener: Headso: When we don't you end up with Rwanda. Intelligent intervention isn't a bad thing IMO. Just gotta follow Kenny Rogers advice from that Gambler song and apply it to foreign policy.


Coward of the County?  So, lock the door and beat the crap out of the rapists in a bar room brawl.  I kind of like this new foreign policy.


I Lawl'd
 
2012-12-06 12:25:33 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Happy Hours: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.

Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.

Assad's killed what, tens of thousands with conventional weapons? I just find it weird that it's somehow more abhorrent to the world to use chemical weapons, rather than torturing children to death.

My guess is that people object because a) defensive and counter-offensive measures are nonexistent and b) unlike conventional weapons, the area of effect is unpredictable. You can wear a bulletproof vest, or hide in a bunker during an artillery barrage

I agree with Bashar's point thought. It is amazingly "interesting" what the US tolerates and what we do not tolerate. It's not just specifically bullets, it speaks to a broader point. People in Africa are raping babies to cure HIV. We sat by as 800,000 people were etxterminated in Rwanda, we sit by as hundreds of thousands die in Darfur. We sat and continue to sit by as various countries treat women like dogs or worse. No education, can't show your face in public, men basically do whatever the fark they want to them with no repercussions. That's all cool but once you get out the chemical weapon, that's too far.

It's... "interesting."


I was speculating on why people view the different classes of weapons the ways that they do, not the moral questions regarding US involvement or lack thereof.
 
2012-12-06 12:29:08 PM

imontheinternet:

Iraq never used chemical weapons.


i think the kurds may disagree with your thoughts on this: Halabja


They didn't even have any. well, other than the stuff we sold them. but there weren't any interesting collaborating stories to go along with those.
 
2012-12-06 12:29:40 PM

Steve Zodiac: Because
A) Syria is next to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and may attack or destabilize one or more of them.

B) Turkey is a NATO ally and the U.S. is required to come to their aid, Saudi provides oil to much of Western Europe and it would be bad for their economy, and therefore our economy, to have a major disruption in energy supplies, and no US politician dares ignore Israel if he wants to be reelected.


When you have a tiger by the tail, it's hard to let go.
But it is kind of amusing that, despite the way the Neoconservatives curl their lips in derision at Jimmy Carter's name - here we are, 35 years later, with what is basically his middle east policy, still in place.
What a clusterf**k - a real slo-mo trainwreck.
 
2012-12-06 12:31:29 PM
caution, link goes to wiki, but it shows dead people. i hope that doesn't violate fark's "free cat" policy in some way. if so, mods please delete my post or de-linkinate
 
2012-12-06 12:36:02 PM

qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Happy Hours: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Why is killing your own populace with bullets and missiles acceptable but gassing them isn't? Torture thousands of children, get a sternly worded letter. Drop some gas on a safe house, the world unites against you.

Because most of the civilized world decided after WWI that chemical weapons were very bad.

Assad's killed what, tens of thousands with conventional weapons? I just find it weird that it's somehow more abhorrent to the world to use chemical weapons, rather than torturing children to death.

My guess is that people object because a) defensive and counter-offensive measures are nonexistent and b) unlike conventional weapons, the area of effect is unpredictable. You can wear a bulletproof vest, or hide in a bunker during an artillery barrage

I agree with Bashar's point thought. It is amazingly "interesting" what the US tolerates and what we do not tolerate. It's not just specifically bullets, it speaks to a broader point. People in Africa are raping babies to cure HIV. We sat by as 800,000 people were etxterminated in Rwanda, we sit by as hundreds of thousands die in Darfur. We sat and continue to sit by as various countries treat women like dogs or worse. No education, can't show your face in public, men basically do whatever the fark they want to them with no repercussions. That's all cool but once you get out the chemical weapon, that's too far.

It's... "interesting."

I was speculating on why people view the different classes of weapons the ways that they do, not the moral questions regarding US involvement or lack thereof.



Right, I agree with your assessment. I was attempting to bring it back to what I thought his original point was because I found it more "interesting." The bolded part was what indicated to me he was talking about the moral question.
 
2012-12-06 12:37:08 PM

divgradcurl: imontheinternet:

Iraq never used chemical weapons.

i think the kurds may disagree with your thoughts on this: Halabja


Iraq didn't have them or use them in the early 00s, when the invasion happened. Syria has a known stockpile.
 
2012-12-06 12:46:34 PM

imontheinternet: divgradcurl: imontheinternet:

Iraq never used chemical weapons.

i think the kurds may disagree with your thoughts on this: Halabja

Iraq didn't have them or use them in the early 00s, when the invasion happened. Syria has a known stockpile.



Maybe, just maybe the reason we are so eager to stop them from using them is because these are the chemical weapons that Iraq had that crossed the Syrian border when we invaded and it woudl be embarassing if they really did exists?
 
It'd make a good screen play.
 
2012-12-06 12:47:06 PM

divgradcurl: hey man, that 'fark yeah' after our name doesn't come free


It does cost a buck o' five.
 
2012-12-06 12:48:14 PM

I_C_Weener: imontheinternet: divgradcurl: imontheinternet:

Iraq never used chemical weapons.

i think the kurds may disagree with your thoughts on this: Halabja

Iraq didn't have them or use them in the early 00s, when the invasion happened. Syria has a known stockpile.


Maybe, just maybe the reason we are so eager to stop them from using them is because these are the chemical weapons that Iraq had that crossed the Syrian border when we invaded and it woudl be embarassing if they really did exists?
 
It'd make a good screen play.


Have them stored at Obama's old madrassa during transport, and you've got the next 2016.
 
2012-12-06 12:50:40 PM
This is the thread where the neocons of 2004 are the libertarians of today, and liberals accuse other liberals of being conservative.
 
2012-12-06 01:05:03 PM
It's not that hard subby, the bUlk of the Syrian rebel forces ARE actual terrorists, specifically the group that used to call itself Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Back when the Iraq invasion still looked like it was going to be a cakewalk, the architects of the invasion started strongly hinting that Syria had "next". In response, Assad's Daddy emptied his prisons of the militant Salafists (hardline Sunnis) he'd locked up for trying to overthrow HIS regieme. He basically freed them on the condition that the go south and fight the American infidels in Iraq and get the hell out of his country. Thus the Syrain salafist militant groups provided the manpower and the Saudi Wahabbists (even MORE hardline Sunnis) provided the funding for what would become "Al-qaeda in Iraq" who fought US troops and the Iraqi Shi'ites with equal fervor.

When even the Iraqi Sunnis finally turned on them (remember the "Anbar awakening")you had a group of heavily armed, combat-hardened militants that were suddenly persona non grata in iraq and not at all welcomed by the current regieme in their home country. That's more or less hen the Syrain civil war started.

so Yeah, these guys ARE terrorists and ones engaged in active combat with US forces less than 3 years ago; however they MIGHT be slightly better people than the folks currently holding the reins in Dmascus
 
2012-12-06 01:09:12 PM

imontheinternet: Iraq never used chemical weapons. They didn't even have any.


Um... the Kurds have sent me a psychic message asking me to inquire what alternate universe you're from, exactly.
 
2012-12-06 01:19:18 PM

Jim_Callahan: imontheinternet: Iraq never used chemical weapons. They didn't even have any.

Um... the Kurds have sent me a psychic message asking me to inquire what alternate universe you're from, exactly.


Iraq didn't have them or use them in the 00s before the war. The ones they had used against the Kurds had a shelf life and had expired well before '03. If they're used in Syria tomorrow, I won't advocate an invasion in 2040 because of it.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report