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.

(Breitbart.com)   Obama: "Assad's days are numbered...uhhh....I am thinking of a number that is greater than 600 but less than 60,000"   (breitbart.com) divider line 328
    More: Followup, UHHH  
•       •       •

3218 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 May 2013 at 10:59 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-07 11:00:29 AM
Assad still has what? 10 maybe 13 UN resolutions before the strongly worded letter?
 
2013-05-07 11:00:46 AM
Humorous.
 
2013-05-07 11:01:06 AM
Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.
 
2013-05-07 11:01:10 AM
no matter what...it is a f00king trap!
 
2013-05-07 11:01:35 AM
Maybe we should just butt out and let this thing play itself out.
 
2013-05-07 11:02:10 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-07 11:02:34 AM
Brietbart is certainly a "news" source worthy of Fark
 
2013-05-07 11:02:43 AM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?
 
2013-05-07 11:03:01 AM
http://www.math.nthu.edu.tw/~amen/2009/070902-1.pdf

I'll summarize. Comparing numbers is an "undecidable problem".

/Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
//Smoke em if you got em//

Did I do that right?
 
2013-05-07 11:03:51 AM
The right wing nutters still stop short of saying what we should actually do in Syria, they just know one thing for sure their top priority, they want to make fartbongo look bad.
 
2013-05-07 11:03:54 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?


I believe yesterday's thought was to kill everybody.
 
2013-05-07 11:03:57 AM
I guess in a sense all of our days are numbered.  Unless you're an immortal.  But even then, there can be only one.
 
2013-05-07 11:04:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?


I don't think they knew anything about the chemical weapon rumors 600 days ago.  I think he's just saying that "some" kind of action should have been taken such as direct diplomacy, small support...

I can be wrong, though.
 
2013-05-07 11:05:28 AM

God-is-a-Taco: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x215]


Oh, and I'm not comparing Obama to Bush in a negative light here.
Rushing into wars is bad.
 
2013-05-07 11:05:57 AM
I set my alarm-clock to repeat "Andrew Breitbart is dead" so I always wake up to good news.
 
2013-05-07 11:06:42 AM
Obama should hang out with Kim Sung Dum or whatever the heck Best Korea's guy is. Would probably get along well. They could play basketball together and have Rodman get in on the action.
 
2013-05-07 11:07:29 AM
Obama's so soft. I'll bet all he does is drone on about the problem.
 
2013-05-07 11:07:59 AM
Think we need to go into Syria?  Grab a rifle, strap on a parachute and go.  Or else STFU.
 
2013-05-07 11:08:33 AM
Well, in Republicanland, "6 days; 6 weeks" means "close to 9 full years", so Obama's still got 7+ years to stay this particular course.
 
2013-05-07 11:08:36 AM
look the important thing is that we need to kill someone, somewhere

wait I mean DRONES BAD BLOODTHIRSTY OBAMA
 
2013-05-07 11:09:24 AM

stevenboof: I believe yesterday's thought was to kill everybody.


www.angryflower.com
 
2013-05-07 11:09:26 AM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


I don't think Obama's threats were ever worth much. He just can't pull off menacing.
 
2013-05-07 11:10:01 AM

Thunderpipes: Obama should hang out with Kim Sung Dum or whatever the heck Best Korea's guy is.


Your foreign policy opinions are very informed.
 
2013-05-07 11:10:12 AM
He's soft of Syria just like he was soft on Bin Laden.
 
2013-05-07 11:10:19 AM

Dr Dreidel: Well, in Republicanland, "6 days; 6 weeks" means "close to 9 full years", so Obama's still got 7+ years to stay this particular course.


We're turning a corner.
 
2013-05-07 11:10:37 AM

Nabb1: I guess in a sense all of our days are numbered.  Unless you're an immortal.  But even then, there can be only one.


Unless you're stuck in a cave. Then you dont count until you come out of the cave. It's kind of like Schrödinger's cat but in a cave and with aliens..
 
2013-05-07 11:10:46 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I set my alarm-clock to repeat "Andrew Breitbart is dead" so I always wake up to good news.


Ha!
 
2013-05-07 11:11:07 AM

Headso: Thunderpipes: Obama should hang out with Kim Sung Dum or whatever the heck Best Korea's guy is.

Your foreign policy opinions are very informed.


They both make bold threats, but don't back it up. How am I wrong?

Was a joke anyway, geez.
 
2013-05-07 11:11:39 AM

Kibbler: Think we need to go into Syria?  Grab a rifle, strap on a parachute and go.  Or else STFU.


Also, this.
 
2013-05-07 11:11:56 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?


It doesn't matter. Tatsuma just loves seeing non-Jewish people getting killed. He isn't picky.
 
2013-05-07 11:12:58 AM

NallTWD: He's soft of Syria just like he was soft on Bin Laden.


And Libya.

Of course, the GOP was attacking him for not intervening before attacking him for intervening, so there's that.
 
2013-05-07 11:13:08 AM
Why do I always make the mistake of reading the comments whenever a Breitbart post makes its way onto Fark?  I swear to god, that place just ties brain cells down and slowly strangles them to the tune of Barney and Friends...
 
2013-05-07 11:13:12 AM
Assad says Breitbart's number is -426 or so. All that complementary cocaine over the years paid off.
 
2013-05-07 11:13:28 AM
Why should the US do anything?  Israel's closer, let them handle it.  They've been doing pretty well so far.
 
2013-05-07 11:13:40 AM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.

/sorry, had to get that out.
 
2013-05-07 11:13:46 AM
Derp...and I mean the comments on THEIR site.  They quickly disappoint one in humanity.
 
2013-05-07 11:13:54 AM

Ned Stark: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

I don't think Obama's threats were ever worth much. He just can't pull off menacing.


I know, right? Just ask bin Laden and Gadhafi. Obama is a total pussy.
 
2013-05-07 11:15:02 AM
Why, again, do we care about any of this?
 
2013-05-07 11:15:28 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I set my alarm-clock to repeat "Andrew Breitbart is dead" so I always wake up to good news.


You must lead a truly fascinating life after that alarm goes off.
 
2013-05-07 11:15:58 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Assad still has what? 10 maybe 13 UN resolutions before the strongly worded letter?


I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?
 
2013-05-07 11:16:00 AM

Headso: Thunderpipes: Obama should hang out with Kim Sung Dum or whatever the heck Best Korea's guy is.

Your foreign policy opinions are very informed infromed.


FTFY
 
2013-05-07 11:16:17 AM
could we warn in the headline that the link points to an autoplay video?

/breitbart should have been warning enough
 
2013-05-07 11:16:42 AM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


What threat did Obama make?
 
2013-05-07 11:16:48 AM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


That's why Quadaffi's still in Libya?  Oh wait...
 
2013-05-07 11:17:40 AM
22,000 days
22,000 days
It's not a lot
It's all you got
22,000 days
 
2013-05-07 11:18:26 AM

Rwa2play: I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?


And your guess is wrong.
 
2013-05-07 11:18:58 AM
We're not going into Syria unless we get the entire region behind us in doing it.

It'll be a carbon copy of how we dealt with Libya.  Or it won't happen at all.

Deal with it, chickenhawks.
 
2013-05-07 11:19:46 AM

Ned Stark: Kibbler: Think we need to go into Syria?  Grab a rifle, strap on a parachute and go.  Or else STFU.

Also, this.


Seconded.  It's nice when the war hawks pigs get all stupid about American lives being in harms way in a conflict which has nothing to do with us.
 
2013-05-07 11:20:00 AM

wooden_badger: 22,000 days
22,000 days
It's not a lot
It's all you got
22,000 days


Please, don't remind me.  I can handle that on a Friday afternoon, maybe, but not a Tuesday morning.
 
2013-05-07 11:20:43 AM

Headso: The right wing nutters still stop short of saying what we should actually do in Syria, they just know one thing for sure their top priority, they want to make fartbongo look bad.


I don't think the "rightwingnutters" want to go into Syria at all.  They consider all sides in that conflict to be the bad guys and are more worried that support will be given to somebody at sometime by Obama and that means helping the bad guys.  As for Obama, they do want him to look bad but this time, again, its all on him.  Obama opened his mouth and inserted his own foot, pointing it out isn't making him look bad, he does because of himself, pointing it out just helps you to see it more easily.
 
2013-05-07 11:20:47 AM

Infernalist: We're not going into Syria unless we get the entire region behind us in doing it.

It'll be a carbon copy of how we dealt with Libya. Or it won't happen at all.


You mean the action that destabilized the region, left a fragmented country, and raised support for Islamic extremism that's now being used to justify bombings in other North African countries? That dealing with Libya?

I'm so glad we're going to get a repeat of that.
 
2013-05-07 11:20:49 AM

DeaH: Ned Stark: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

I don't think Obama's threats were ever worth much. He just can't pull off menacing.

I know, right? Just ask bin Laden and Gadhafi. Obama is a total pussy.


Oh, he's a devestatingly effective killer to be sure. He just can't, ah, talk the walk. Reminds me of my middle school vice principle.
 
2013-05-07 11:21:26 AM
I don't get why we can't just say what everyone wants to hear and then DO what needs to be done. It's not like our government doesn't do it already to a degree, but I wish our president and officials would talk about peace and truce and getting along and forgiving, turning the other cheek.

Like this: The United States has no right to interfere with the sovereignty of any country. We will let the United Nations deal with it. Also, we cannot coerce people to adopt our economic model etc, etc.

Meanwhile, accidents happen. Or rebels kill somebody. just deny everything, even if there's video proof. Just claim it's propaganda by terrorists.

No threats, just pleasantries in public. Then kill whoever needs killing.

I realize it is not galant to be two-faced but sometimes you need to do it.
 
2013-05-07 11:21:29 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Rwa2play: I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?

And your guess is wrong.


wrong login
 
2013-05-07 11:21:34 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Rwa2play: I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?

And your guess is wrong.


post proof then...or are you going with the "you can look it up yourself" "defense".
 
2013-05-07 11:21:46 AM

GoldSpider: Why, again, do we care about any of this?


It makes an easy launching point against the administration.

I mean, if you don't actually think about it at all.
 
2013-05-07 11:23:25 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Infernalist: We're not going into Syria unless we get the entire region behind us in doing it.

It'll be a carbon copy of how we dealt with Libya. Or it won't happen at all.

You mean the action that destabilized the region, left a fragmented country, and raised support for Islamic extremism that's now being used to justify bombings in other North African countries? That dealing with Libya?

I'm so glad we're going to get a repeat of that.


So am I.  It was cheap, no Americans died, we were in and out in weeks and the Libyan people love us for it.

I can't wait to do it again.

The 'best' part?  The GOP has to sit there and simmer in their hatred of a Democratic President that knows how to wage war better than they can.
 
2013-05-07 11:23:33 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Infernalist: We're not going into Syria unless we get the entire region behind us in doing it.

It'll be a carbon copy of how we dealt with Libya. Or it won't happen at all.

You mean the action that destabilized the region, left a fragmented country, and raised support for Islamic extremism that's now being used to justify bombings in other North African countries? That dealing with Libya?

I'm so glad we're going to get a repeat of that.


Another White Knight for Gaddafi.
 
2013-05-07 11:23:37 AM

LasersHurt: GoldSpider: Why, again, do we care about any of this?

It makes an easy launching point against the administration.

I mean, if you don't actually think about it at all.


Ooooh, okay, so that's where I went wrong.
 
2013-05-07 11:24:07 AM
430

That is the number of days Andrew Breitbart has been dead.
 
2013-05-07 11:24:27 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: You mean the action that destabilized the region, left a fragmented country, and raised support for Islamic extremism that's now being used to justify bombings in other North African countries? That dealing with Libya?


That all would have happened anyway.
 
2013-05-07 11:25:16 AM

Headso: The right wing nutters still stop short of saying what we should actually do in Syria, they just know one thing for sure their top priority, they want to make fartbongo look bad.


Because they know there are at least 100 rebel groups operating in Syria, all with different goals.  If Obama wades in they got him because the it'll be a bigger clusterfark than Iraq.  If he doesn't act, they got him because he didn't help the Syrian people against the evil dictator.

The whole strategy only works if you want to remain the opposition party.  You can't lead with this strategy. So, they will just keep losing national elections while they complain away their days.
 
2013-05-07 11:25:23 AM

WhoGAS: I don't think they knew anything about the chemical weapon rumors 600 days ago. I think he's just saying that "some" kind of action should have been taken such as direct diplomacy, small support...


We've known about Assad's chemical weapons for decades now.

Granny_Panties: It doesn't matter. Tatsuma just loves seeing non-Jewish people getting killed. He isn't picky.


Hey, someone's stupid alt.

LasersHurt: You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.


Thank you for countering my opinion with facts.

Rwa2play: That's why Quadaffi's still in Libya? Oh wait...


Sarkozy had more to do with that than Obama ever had.
 
2013-05-07 11:25:25 AM
Dead junkie say what?
 
2013-05-07 11:25:33 AM
Also I'm sure conservatives will be for it before they are against it.  Just like in Libya.
 
2013-05-07 11:26:49 AM

Tatsuma: We've known about Assad's (Saddam's) chemical weapons for decades now.


Now where have we heard that before?
 
2013-05-07 11:26:51 AM
I always like a loud Bright Fart right after breakfast.
 
2013-05-07 11:27:01 AM

Tatsuma: WhoGAS: I don't think they knew anything about the chemical weapon rumors 600 days ago. I think he's just saying that "some" kind of action should have been taken such as direct diplomacy, small support...

We've known about Assad's chemical weapons for decades now.

Granny_Panties: It doesn't matter. Tatsuma just loves seeing non-Jewish people getting killed. He isn't picky.

Hey, someone's stupid alt.

LasersHurt: You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.

Thank you for countering my opinion with facts.

Rwa2play: That's why Quadaffi's still in Libya? Oh wait...

Sarkozy had more to do with that than Obama ever had.


Nothing would have happened to Daffy without American resources and/or logistic support.  That's why we were so critical to things working in that intervention.
 
2013-05-07 11:27:55 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.

Thank you for countering my opinion with facts.


What facts? It's obviously a bad idea to get militarily involved. It's obvious that this situation is different than other situations in near history.

What "facts" do you need to show it's a shiatty idea to get into another military conflict in the Middle East?

Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?
 
2013-05-07 11:28:56 AM
No more war.  This is just 21st century imperialism.  It's a distraction to the American public that makes them forget how their rights have been trampled in the last 30 years.  No war but class war.
 
2013-05-07 11:29:00 AM

GoldSpider: Now where have we heard that before?


Everyone knows that? Is that seriously news to you?

Infernalist: Nothing would have happened to Daffy without American resources and/or logistic support. That's why we were so critical to things working in that intervention.


It absolutely could have happened. Do you really think that if France had decided to go at it on their own they would not have been able to? Are you serious?
 
2013-05-07 11:29:03 AM

Headso: The right wing nutters still stop short of saying what we should actually do in Syria, they just know one thing for sure their top priority, they want to make fartbongo look bad.


Obviously we should be arming the Sunni Muslim rebels, many of whom are aligned with Al Qaeda groups throughout the region, and allow them to take over the country and enstate Sharia law (the same groups who may have actually used the chemical weapons).  They certainly wouldn't call for action like in Libya, and then complain when action is taken like in Libya.  And I can't possibly imagine them gnashing their teeth about the results of those actions when they end up with religious groups they oppose coming to power like in Egypt.

All they know how to do is oppose what Obama does, they stopped being the party of personal responsibility long ago.
 
2013-05-07 11:29:38 AM
What was that about talking softly and, uh, carrying a big stick? Presumably the strongly-worded letter will be delivered by the US Airforce. In an envelop labeled "To Whom It May Concern"
 
2013-05-07 11:29:43 AM
The problem with Syria is that there are no good guys. I will not support Assad or Al Qaeda. If any of the groups in that country were advocating a secular democracy, we might have someone to rally behind. But all I can say is to let the scumbags kill each other, and it's a shame that some non-combatants will continue to be killed in the process.
 
2013-05-07 11:30:04 AM

LasersHurt: Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?


Nowhere in my post did I say that America should get involved. I said 'don't threaten if you're not going to back up what you're saying' and you came at me insulting me about something I never said.
 
2013-05-07 11:30:09 AM

LasersHurt: What facts? It's obviously a bad idea to get militarily involved. It's obvious that this situation is different than other situations in near history.


Obvious, my dear lad?  I must respectfully disagree.

This sort of conflict is just the opportunity to expand our imperial holdings and secure access to precious petrofuel.
 
2013-05-07 11:31:01 AM
This is how I picture Republicans:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-07 11:31:30 AM
Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian people lose?
 
2013-05-07 11:32:35 AM

Tommy Moo: The problem with Syria is that there are no good guys. I will not support Assad or Al Qaeda. If any of the groups in that country were advocating a secular democracy, we might have someone to rally behind. But all I can say is to let the scumbags kill each other, and it's a shame that some non-combatants will continue to be killed in the process.


Considering the fact that the secular rebel forces have all disappeared from the scene and have been replaced by jihadists from outside or Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda), the fact is that the 'best' thing for regional stability in the end is probably for Assad to stay in power, and not these guys to take over.

And, well, that's a horrible thing to even consider.
 
2013-05-07 11:32:42 AM

Tatsuma: GoldSpider: Now where have we heard that before?

Everyone knows that? Is that seriously news to you?

Infernalist: Nothing would have happened to Daffy without American resources and/or logistic support. That's why we were so critical to things working in that intervention.

It absolutely could have happened. Do you really think that if France had decided to go at it on their own they would not have been able to? Are you serious?


I'm absolutely serious.  The French are cute and all, but it wouldn't have amounted to much without American support from behind.  Why do you think they pushed us so hard to get involved?  Because we 'know' how to do this stuff.  We should, after Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade.

American experience and logistical support is what laid the foundation for that successful intervention.  Without it, Daffy would probably still be there.  It's not like the French were going to go in by themselves.  Let's be serious.
 
2013-05-07 11:32:46 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?

Nowhere in my post did I say that America should get involved. I said 'don't threaten if you're not going to back up what you're saying' and you came at me insulting me about something I never said.


You have repeatedly spoken about how Obama looks weak because of this "red line" thing - assuming, of course, that a single use violates his terms, which is not even a given fact. I am assuming that you'd rather we do something different, what with your constant negative statements about the administration regarding this.

Maybe you just want to call him a pussy, AND agree with him, which could be the case. I dunno.
 
2013-05-07 11:33:04 AM

meat0918: Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian people lose?


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-07 11:33:18 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?


I've been of the opinion that if we were going to do anything at all with that mess that it should be something to help dispose of the rebellion.
 
2013-05-07 11:33:48 AM

meat0918: Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian people lose?


Pretty much the case in all 3rd world countries. As long as the concept continues to exist, losing will be had by the people we're supposedly helping.
 
2013-05-07 11:34:01 AM

meat0918: Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian people lose?


Because this is more or less the case. I feel like our best bet would be to help supplement friendly nations like Turkey and Jordan who have been taking refugees for a long time now. Help the people and stay out of the conflict, because there's not a lot of "winning" to be done there.
 
2013-05-07 11:34:26 AM
I think it's awesome that the Syrian people are rising up to overthrow a dictator in an attempt to establish a government of their own choosing and design.

Well done.
 
2013-05-07 11:35:07 AM
a number that is greater than 600 but less than 60,000

...and that number is six hundred three score and six.
 
2013-05-07 11:35:16 AM

meat0918: Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian the Middle East, the people lose?


FTFY.  It's almost as if bronze-age tribal societies tend to be violent and medieval.
 
2013-05-07 11:35:37 AM
Syria is seriously a f*cking mess. My guess is the Obama administration and the State department knows this. If Assad's regime goes down, another regime will go up. And they know that regime most likely won't be friendly to Israel or the US's interests. It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Oh but of course there is a third faction of people who want to setup a democratic state and/or don't want to die. But they are smaller in size and number and the Islamic terror groups are probably actively going after these guys even while they fight Assad.

But yeah it's a great idea for the US to intervene in this situation. Let's setup a no fly zone and sell arms to a bunch of unstable Jihadis.
 
2013-05-07 11:35:44 AM

Infernalist: Tatsuma: GoldSpider: Now where have we heard that before?

Everyone knows that? Is that seriously news to you?

Infernalist: Nothing would have happened to Daffy without American resources and/or logistic support. That's why we were so critical to things working in that intervention.

It absolutely could have happened. Do you really think that if France had decided to go at it on their own they would not have been able to? Are you serious?

I'm absolutely serious.  The French are cute and all, but it wouldn't have amounted to much without American support from behind.  Why do you think they pushed us so hard to get involved?  Because we 'know' how to do this stuff.  We should, after Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade.

American experience and logistical support is what laid the foundation for that successful intervention.  Without it, Daffy would probably still be there.  It's not like the French were going to go in by themselves.  Let's be serious.


Obama Derangement Syndrome is a Hell of a drug.  There is no use arguing with a junkie.
 
2013-05-07 11:36:24 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?

Nowhere in my post did I say that America should get involved. I said 'don't threaten if you're not going to back up what you're saying'


So you think America should get involved.
 
2013-05-07 11:37:40 AM

GoldSpider: meat0918: Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian the Middle East, the people lose?

FTFY.  It's almost as if bronze-age tribal societies tend to be violent and medieval.


LOL so it's their fault, and not the consistent history of US/NATO meddling in their governments that makes them hate us. M'kay....
 
2013-05-07 11:37:47 AM

bdub77: Syria is seriously a f*cking mess. My guess is the Obama administration and the State department knows this. If Assad's regime goes down, another regime will go up. And they know that regime most likely won't be friendly to Israel or the US's interests. It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Oh but of course there is a third faction of people who want to setup a democratic state and/or don't want to die. But they are smaller in size and number and the Islamic terror groups are probably actively going after these guys even while they fight Assad.

But yeah it's a great idea for the US to intervene in this situation. Let's setup a no fly zone and sell arms to a bunch of unstable Jihadis.


As long as they follow the plan in how they intervened in Libya, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen.
 
2013-05-07 11:37:47 AM

bdub77: It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria


Al Qaeda. Next question.
 
2013-05-07 11:38:47 AM
Well, I tried to give the guy the benefit of the doubt; I can see why some gang up on people here.
 
2013-05-07 11:38:50 AM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


For anyone dumb enough to think that this was some sort of "threat", sure.
 
2013-05-07 11:38:52 AM
Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.
 
2013-05-07 11:38:55 AM

Anti_illuminati: bdub77: It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria

Al Qaeda. Next question.


Wait. Are we talking new-age Nazis, or a reincarnation of the Third Reich? 'Cause that seriously changes things.
 
2013-05-07 11:39:39 AM

whidbey: GoldSpider: meat0918: Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian the Middle East, the people lose?

FTFY.  It's almost as if bronze-age tribal societies tend to be violent and medieval.

LOL so it's their fault, and not the consistent history of US/NATO meddling in their governments that makes them hate us. M'kay....


To be completely fair, we meddled with the Libyan government until it broke apart and the Libyan people love us for it.

Meddling isn't really what has them angry, it's the fact that we support tyrannical dictators for financial reasons that has them so irritated.  When we bring that meddling/force to bear upon dictators, they seem to like us a lot more.
 
2013-05-07 11:39:46 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?

Nowhere in my post did I say that America should get involved. I said 'don't threaten if you're not going to back up what you're saying' and you came at me insulting me about something I never said.


What did he threaten?
 
2013-05-07 11:39:51 AM
Let them fight it out until there is only one left. Then blow them up.
 
2013-05-07 11:40:03 AM
I love how I post something scholarly and educated and people continue blathering stupid nonsense, fark is what is wrong with the world
 
2013-05-07 11:40:34 AM

HotWingConspiracy: So you think America should get involved.


... or just don't threaten

Infernalist: As long as they follow the plan in how they intervened in Libya, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen.


Isn't one Benghazi enough, you damned Satanist!
 
2013-05-07 11:41:09 AM

DraconianTotalitarian: I love how I post something scholarly and educated and people continue blathering stupid nonsense, fark is what is wrong with the world


Do you also get angry at toddlers when they don't grasp the details of advanced astrophysics?

/I'm on your side here.
 
2013-05-07 11:41:19 AM

Infernalist: I'm absolutely serious. The French are cute and all, but it wouldn't have amounted to much without American support from behind. Why do you think they pushed us so hard to get involved?


Because they didn't want to foot the bill?

Infernalist: Because we 'know' how to do this stuff. We should, after Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade.


If the French know anything, it's how to use an airforce to bomb an African country into oblivion

LasersHurt: You have repeatedly spoken about how Obama looks weak because of this "red line" thing - assuming, of course, that a single use violates his terms, which is not even a given fact. I am assuming that you'd rather we do something different, what with your constant negative statements about the administration regarding this.


So because I've repeated that putting up red lines is a bad idea if you're not going to follow through, that equals to me wanting American boots on the ground in Syria and just straight up make it ok to insult me?

WelcomeToFark.jpg I suppose.
 
2013-05-07 11:41:53 AM
For the record, I wouldn't exactly mind putting up a no fly zone and include some options for the US to intercept chemical weapons where possible. But if this stuff is only containable by putting US troops on the ground...let someone else deal with that sh*t. Also again we don't really know for a fact who is using the chemical weapons. There could be some Islamic extremists who are against Assad and using chemical weapons against the alliance the US supports.

Maybe the best option is using Israel as a proxy.
 
2013-05-07 11:42:06 AM

Infernalist: When we bring that meddling/force to bear upon dictators, they seem to like us a lot more.


Dictators like Saddam Hussein?
 
2013-05-07 11:42:15 AM

Infernalist: Meddling isn't really what has them angry, it's the fact that we support tyrannical dictators for financial reasons that has them so irritated.  When we bring that meddling/force to bear upon dictators, they seem to like us a lot more


Yeah but that is part of the meddling I'm referring to. We want places like Syria to be absolute shiatholes.
 
2013-05-07 11:42:15 AM

Biological Ali: For anyone dumb enough to think that this was some sort of "threat", sure.


What other implication was behind the "red line" message then?  A promise of cupcakes and cunnilingus?
 
2013-05-07 11:42:28 AM

Tatsuma: Infernalist: Nothing would have happened to Daffy without American resources and/or logistic support. That's why we were so critical to things working in that intervention.

It absolutely could have happened. Do you really think that if France had decided to go at it on their own they would not have been able to? Are you serious?


Considering that we had to knock down all the air defenses first, and then continue providing bombs from our own stockpiles, and aerial refueling coverage so they could continue? Absolutely.

The U.S. has been subsidizing Europe's defense both directly and indirectly for 70 years now, and its comical how ineffective they've become.
 
2013-05-07 11:42:30 AM

indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.


I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.
 
2013-05-07 11:42:32 AM

Rwa2play: post proof then...or are you going with the "you can look it up yourself" "defense".


You want me to post proof that I never said something?! How do I do that?
 
2013-05-07 11:43:03 AM
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-05-07 11:43:21 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Biological Ali: For anyone dumb enough to think that this was some sort of "threat", sure.

What other implication was behind the "red line" message then?  A promise of cupcakes and cunnilingus?


Are we talking about what the headline is referencing, or something different?
 
2013-05-07 11:43:24 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: strongly worded letter


I thought this meme died with Ghadaffi.
 
2013-05-07 11:44:07 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: You have repeatedly spoken about how Obama looks weak because of this "red line" thing - assuming, of course, that a single use violates his terms, which is not even a given fact. I am assuming that you'd rather we do something different, what with your constant negative statements about the administration regarding this.

So because I've repeated that putting up red lines is a bad idea if you're not going to follow through, that equals to me wanting American boots on the ground in Syria and just straight up make it ok to insult me?

WelcomeToFark.jpg I suppose.


No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.
 
2013-05-07 11:44:09 AM

Tatsuma: So because I've repeated that putting up red lines is a bad idea if you're not going to follow through, that equals to me wanting American boots on the ground in Syria and just straight up make it ok to insult me?


In all fairness, Tats has been fairly consistent about that specific point.  Though it's easy to infer a lot of hawkishness from your recent posting history.
 
2013-05-07 11:44:23 AM

Infernalist: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Infernalist: We're not going into Syria unless we get the entire region behind us in doing it.

It'll be a carbon copy of how we dealt with Libya. Or it won't happen at all.

You mean the action that destabilized the region, left a fragmented country, and raised support for Islamic extremism that's now being used to justify bombings in other North African countries? That dealing with Libya?

I'm so glad we're going to get a repeat of that.

So am I.  It was cheap, no Americans died, we were in and out in weeks and the Libyan people love us for it.

I can't wait to do it again.

The 'best' part?  The GOP has to sit there and simmer in their hatred of a Democratic President that knows how to wage war better than they can.


In fairness a monkey with his dick stuck in an electrical socket would have more ability in this regard than the GOP.
 
2013-05-07 11:44:34 AM

Anti_illuminati: Anti_illuminati: bdub77: It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria

Al Qaeda. Next question.

Wait. Are we talking new-age Nazis, or a reincarnation of the Third Reich? 'Cause that seriously changes things.


Maybe a better example would be Saddam vs. Al Qaeda. OK he committed genocide on a people too, if a smaller scale.

God there are really no good options here.
 
2013-05-07 11:44:52 AM

Headso: The right wing nutters still stop short of saying what we should actually do in Syria, they just know one thing for sure their top priority, they want to make fartbongo look bad.


They are Schroedinger's Party. They don't actually make a decision until Obama makes one, then they make the opposite and say they were always against the one Obama made (even when they were on tape praising that decision...and demonizing the decision they're now behind because some other ebil librul was for it.)
 
2013-05-07 11:44:56 AM

bdub77: Maybe the best option is using Israel as a proxy.


Syria: We will counterattack any offensive moves by the UN or United States in our borders!
Obama: GOOD LUCK, I'M BEHIND SEVEN ISRAELS
 
2013-05-07 11:45:06 AM

Rwa2play: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Rwa2play: I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?

And your guess is wrong.

post proof then...or are you going with the "you can look it up yourself" "defense".


You made the accusation, you can provide proof of your own.

/I'm defending him mainly because of the kickass pictures he posts
//But you're being an ass about it, too
 
2013-05-07 11:45:24 AM
Tatsuma:
LasersHurt: You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.

Thank you for countering my opinion with facts.



You're being sarcastic, but it is pretty much a fact that you are not a very good human being.  Even if you pretend not to, you seem to revel in death, especially of those you imagine as enemies of Israel.  You're so enamored with one nation that you'd see massive bloodshed to "protect" it, in a way, that in the long run, only does a disservice to the people of the nation.
 
2013-05-07 11:45:38 AM

GoldSpider: Tatsuma: So because I've repeated that putting up red lines is a bad idea if you're not going to follow through, that equals to me wanting American boots on the ground in Syria and just straight up make it ok to insult me?

In all fairness, Tats has been fairly consistent about that specific point.  Though it's easy to infer a lot of hawkishness from your recent posting history.


I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails. He's really quick to point out that Obama is not living up to his "red line," but what the fark does that even mean?

I get "Obama bad," but why, specifically?
 
2013-05-07 11:45:59 AM

bdub77: It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria.


Well, it's more like: do you want the next regime to be al-Qaeda-style Islam or Assad-style run-of-the-mill business-suit dictatorship? Would you rather be killed because god wants you dead or because your village once housed a guy who said mean things about Hafez Assad in 1978?

// but you're basically right
 
2013-05-07 11:46:32 AM
When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.
 
2013-05-07 11:46:37 AM

Tatsuma: Infernalist: I'm absolutely serious. The French are cute and all, but it wouldn't have amounted to much without American support from behind. Why do you think they pushed us so hard to get involved?

Because they didn't want to foot the bill?

Infernalist: Because we 'know' how to do this stuff. We should, after Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade.

If the French know anything, it's how to use an airforce to bomb an African country into oblivion

LasersHurt: You have repeatedly spoken about how Obama looks weak because of this "red line" thing - assuming, of course, that a single use violates his terms, which is not even a given fact. I am assuming that you'd rather we do something different, what with your constant negative statements about the administration regarding this.

So because I've repeated that putting up red lines is a bad idea if you're not going to follow through, that equals to me wanting American boots on the ground in Syria and just straight up make it ok to insult me?

WelcomeToFark.jpg I suppose.


lol What bill?  It cost a few million, at most, the majority of which was munitions and payroll.  LOL  'foot the bill', that's so cute.

Also, I realize you have your own lil mental image of what you 'think' the Libyan intervention was like, but that doesn't make it reality.  We used mostly pin-point strikes on air defenses and then ground-based armor and artillery to destroy Daffy's military advantage over the rebels.  It was probably the exact farking opposite of 'bombing an African country into oblivion'.

It was precise, it was careful, it was deliberate.  And that's why they had us do it, because if the French had to do it...lol  yeah, good luck with that.
 
2013-05-07 11:47:18 AM

coeyagi: When your top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.


FTFM
 
2013-05-07 11:47:51 AM

Biological Ali: Are we talking about what the headline is referencing, or something different?


I'm thinking of the August 20, 2012 "red line" remark by Obama that the use of chemical weapons would change the "calculus" of American non-involvement.

I wonder what the implications are if both sides are using chemical weapons.  What do we do then?  Appoint Israel as our Viceroy to adminster our new Syrian territory?
 
2013-05-07 11:48:25 AM
People. Libya and Syria are not the same country. They don't have the same mix of people, they don't have the same terrain, they don't have the same borders, they don't have the same dictator, they don't have the same size armies, and the UN doesn't have the same level of support. Stop comparing them.
 
2013-05-07 11:48:26 AM

Wyalt Derp: The Stealth Hippopotamus: strongly worded letter

I thought this meme died with Ghadaffi.


According to Tats that is entirely owed to the French.  Obama did nothing but apologize.
 
2013-05-07 11:48:46 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Biological Ali: Are we talking about what the headline is referencing, or something different?

I'm thinking of the August 20, 2012 "red line" remark by Obama that the use of chemical weapons would change the "calculus" of American non-involvement.

I wonder what the implications are if both sides are using chemical weapons.  What do we do then?  Appoint Israel as our Viceroy to adminster our new Syrian territory?


You stay out until you can get consensus from the region and the UN.
 
2013-05-07 11:49:33 AM

Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.


Angels that really don't like black people, but hey, whatevs.
 
2013-05-07 11:49:35 AM

Tatsuma: So because I've repeated that putting up red lines is a bad idea if you're not going to follow through, that equals to me wanting American boots on the ground in Syria and just straight up make it ok to insult me?

WelcomeToFark.jpg I suppose.


I think you know better than to ask that.  I agree with your point though - definitive statements about what we simply will not tolerate without any sort of indication of actually following through are worthless.  I don't want us to invade Syria, either, but if we're not really going to step in, stop talking in terms of not tolerating certain lines being crossed.
 
2013-05-07 11:49:54 AM

Infernalist: You stay out until you can get consensus from the region and the UN.


This.  Why is this approach so frowned upon?
 
2013-05-07 11:50:23 AM

LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.


I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.
 
2013-05-07 11:50:40 AM
Some Americans just can't wait to have another wargasm.  The jingoism and bloodlust of some americans is stupid scary.
 
2013-05-07 11:50:47 AM

Epoch_Zero: [i3.kym-cdn.com image 680x510]


f05cff0b8dde4b14dcbb-39ae6c0e90f9ab066a65187af475ed6d.r73.cf2.rackcdn.com
I haz assad
 
2013-05-07 11:51:20 AM

bdub77: People. Libya and Syria are not the same country. They don't have the same mix of people, they don't have the same terrain, they don't have the same borders, they don't have the same dictator, they don't have the same size armies, and the UN doesn't have the same level of support. Stop comparing them.


Don't be silly.  People are already trying to call this "Obama's Iraq".

And while you're right in that two different countries in two different regions of the world are, omg, different from each other, the basic premise of getting consensus and making a unanimous decision in what to do is paramount.

That's what made Libya work.  We didn't give the middle finger to the regional powers and stomp in like we did in Iraq.  We worked with the UN and the Arab League until we got a united front and moved from there.

If we get that again, Assad is toast.  Until then, the rebels are on their own.
 
2013-05-07 11:51:31 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: HotWingConspiracy: So you think America should get involved.

... or just don't threaten


"Because we recognize the great danger Assad's chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we've set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of the those weapons."

So what was the threat, exactly?

"I've made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders:  We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. The world is watching; we will hold you accountable."

Looking like the rebels used them, and I would doubt that Assad transferred them.
 
2013-05-07 11:52:20 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: I'm thinking of the August 20, 2012 "red line" remark by Obama that the use of chemical weapons would change the "calculus" of American non-involvement.

I wonder what the implications are if both sides are using chemical weapons. What do we do then? Appoint Israel as our Viceroy to adminster our new Syrian territory?


Well, that depends on what the evidence is that chemical weapons have actually been used. Either way, it has nothing to do with the fact that the phrase "days are numbered" is generally used as an observation and not a "threat".
 
2013-05-07 11:52:23 AM

indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.


but we've been playing in the sandboxes of Iraq and Afghanistan for over ten years now.  There's a bright, and shiny new sandbox just on the other side of the western Iraqi border.  There's also another one over here, and there, and...  you get the picture.
 
2013-05-07 11:52:32 AM

stevenboof: Infernalist: You stay out until you can get consensus from the region and the UN.

This.  Why is this approach so frowned upon?


It goes against the inbred (pun intended) notion that 'Murica is the best country ever and we can go around doing whatever we want because Jesus and 9/11.
 
2013-05-07 11:52:44 AM

Infernalist: You stay out until you can get consensus from the region and the UN.


That about settles it, then, since the UN is incapable of consensus when it comes to policing repressive dictators.
 
2013-05-07 11:52:55 AM

GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.


I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.
 
2013-05-07 11:52:58 AM

Ned Stark: Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.

Angels that really don't like black people, but hey, whatevs.


I personally don't like Cinnamon Toast Crunch, but I don't go painting the whole country as hating it.  You should be nicer to people, dude.
 
2013-05-07 11:53:42 AM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: You stay out until you can get consensus from the region and the UN.

That about settles it, then, since the UN is incapable of consensus when it comes to policing repressive dictators.


lol daffy says what?
 
2013-05-07 11:54:22 AM

Wyalt Derp: I thought this meme died with Ghadaffi.


Ghadaffi ruled how many decades? And how many condemnation resolutions from the UN? And it took his own people raising up to handle it, as it should be.

This was one of the few things I give Obama credit for. If we had to help with Libya we should stay at 10 thousand feet. And that's basically what we did. There was some talk about some black ops into the country but for the most part we stayed on the carriers like we should. All in all he handled it the best you can handle these sort of things. He honored our Nato commitments, kept the boots off the ground.
 
2013-05-07 11:54:39 AM

coeyagi: When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.


Really?

Who is making Obama look bad with regards to Syria?  If Obama putting his own foot into his own mouth isn't your #1 answer you're fooling yourself.  All the GOP hacks are doing is making you well aware of it.
 
2013-05-07 11:55:23 AM

Tyee: coeyagi: When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.

Really?

Who is making Obama look bad with regards to Syria?  If Obama putting his own foot into his own mouth isn't your #1 answer you're fooling yourself.  All the GOP hacks are doing is making you well aware of it.


Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"?
 
2013-05-07 11:55:34 AM
You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.
 
2013-05-07 11:56:05 AM

Infernalist: lol daffy says what?


NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.


Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.
 
2013-05-07 11:56:45 AM

Tyee: coeyagi: When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.

Really?

Who is making Obama look bad with regards to Syria?  If Obama putting his own foot into his own mouth isn't your #1 answer you're fooling yourself.  All the GOP hacks are doing is making you well aware of it.


The point.... you missed it.  See: boy who cried wolf.
 
2013-05-07 11:56:55 AM
Aren't all days numbered?  That's how we keep track of them.  Today, for instance, is May 7th.
 
2013-05-07 11:57:06 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


Irish already own the rights

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-07 11:57:20 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


Springtime for Hitler, perhaps?
 
2013-05-07 11:57:34 AM

LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.


The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:16 AM
Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?
 
2013-05-07 11:58:18 AM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.


We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:21 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


We had a Caucasian Spring. Russia responded by killing everyone. Didn't last very long.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.

Irish already own the rights

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x145]


Manly, yes, but John Kerry likes it too!
 
2013-05-07 11:59:08 AM
Obama says "using chem weapons is crossing a red line and won't be tolerated". We get conflicting reports of possible use of chem weapons. Obama doesn't bomb them immediately. Obama is a weakling offering empty threats.

There, I think I've summarized things pretty well.
 
2013-05-07 11:59:09 AM

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.

Angels that really don't like black people, but hey, whatevs.

I personally don't like Cinnamon Toast Crunch, but I don't go painting the whole country as hating it.  You should be nicer to people, dude.


The whole country? Naw. The half NATO bombed didn't genocide anyone and the people they allegedly were going to genocide weren't black. Obviously there was no unity of opinion in this.
 
2013-05-07 11:59:24 AM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.

The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.


You're assuming that he meant military action along the lines of a Libyan intervention.

You ASSUMED wrong.
 
2013-05-07 11:59:43 AM

Albert: Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?


Assad is a pretty hard-core "Islamist" himself, and is thoroughly committed to the destruction of western civilization, much like Iran.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:15 PM

Albert: Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?


You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

That's like saying Christians/Nazis.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:29 PM

LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.


Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama
 
2013-05-07 12:00:32 PM

Infernalist: We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.


The UN only imposed the no-fly zone.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:35 PM

I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring. Those are clean and simple. Flowers and stuff.



What a Germanic people's Spring could look like:
img515.imageshack.us

If done right. If not done right, well... Let's just say I wouldn't want to live in Poland
 
2013-05-07 12:00:50 PM

Biological Ali: Either way, it has nothing to do with the fact that the phrase "days are numbered" is generally used as an observation and not a "threat".


"Days are numbered" is an absolute observation; there's no real implication of the power to effect a remedy.  I can say "President Obama's days are numbered"; there can be a latent hostility to the observation, but no threat.  Fair enough.

It's the "red line" business that is causing Obama grief.  He wanted to sound genuinely threatening while remaining vague; unfortunately a line is a line, and when it gets crossed, it's generally verifiable.  The result clause of the threat wasn't explicitly violent, but the "change my calculus" implied intervention, given that the "calculus" up to this point has consisted largely of non-intervention.

Rather than distancing himself from the remark, Obama should articulate how the "calculus" will change; will he defer to UN leadership on the issue, will he provide lethal resource assistance to the rebels, what will he do differently once the use or transfer of chemical weapons by the regime is confirmed?
 
2013-05-07 12:00:56 PM

Hermione_Granger: Brietbart is certainly a "news" source worthy of Fark


Unlike CNN
 
2013-05-07 12:01:06 PM
Syria is Russia's sphere of influence. It's up to Russia to handle this one.
Step up on the world stage Pootie.

///not my job
 
2013-05-07 12:01:35 PM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.

The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.


Whatever it "seemed to imply" is kind of on the listener. I agree with GoldSpider that some clarification would be good, but what exactly to say? Nobody knows the right way to handle this, precisely because it is NOT Libya, or even close.

I don't have the right answers, but I can't give the administration any shiat for this. If Chemical Weapons KEEP showing up, more than that one time, then he definitely has to act on his "red line" statement one way or another. Not militarily, I hope, but through support and cunning.
 
2013-05-07 12:01:50 PM

bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama


And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.
 
2013-05-07 12:01:58 PM

mrshowrules: Albert: Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?

You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

That's like saying Christians/Nazis.


All of the Nazis took a christian pledge, though...

/just sayin
 
2013-05-07 12:02:02 PM

Infernalist: You're assuming that he meant military action along the lines of a Libyan intervention.

You ASSUMED wrong.


It's easy to infer that from the rhetoric.  He shouldn't have said it, plain and simple.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:38 PM

LasersHurt: Tyee: coeyagi: When you're top priority is making Obama look bad, expect the GOP to pay the Syrian military to kill U.S. citizens.

Really?

Who is making Obama look bad with regards to Syria?  If Obama putting his own foot into his own mouth isn't your #1 answer you're fooling yourself.  All the GOP hacks are doing is making you well aware of it.

Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"?


Obama drew a 'Red Line' when the reality is he will do nothing until the UN and or the majority of the area says OK.  Don't act tough if you are not, it just makes you look foolish.

\I personally don't care to see us get involved
 
2013-05-07 12:02:39 PM
I thought Barry could kick some ass now that he is a lame duck and all.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:46 PM

I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring.


We had one.

media.ny1.com


Conservatives poo-poo'd the whole thing as hippie bullshiat.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:53 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.

The UN only imposed the no-fly zone.


AND allowed for the use of force in the defense of civilian targets.  You forgot that part.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:19 PM

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: No, I assumed you were not idly biatching. I mean you're assuming that "red line" means get involved militarily, assuming the "red line" has been met, and assuming that any responses sofar have NOT been in line with this.

What do you think the red line implied, specifically? What, exactly, do you think he "threatened" to do, and when?

Maybe this will better help me understand your POV.

The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.


I agree.   I have the distinct feeling that Barack Obama wants to go down in history as the Muslim who destroyed Israel and established the Caliphate. He certainly is giving a lot of aid and comfort to Israel's enemies.

/Pogo13's law.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:37 PM

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: Syria is Russia's sphere of influence. It's up to Russia to handle this one.
Step up on the world stage Pootie.

///not my job


oh Jeebus you don't want this to happen. Putin doesn't stop...

Oh man that gives me chills.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:59 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: You're assuming that he meant military action along the lines of a Libyan intervention.

You ASSUMED wrong.

It's easy to infer that from the rhetoric.  He shouldn't have said it, plain and simple.


You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that.  You should stop assuming shiat.
 
2013-05-07 12:04:19 PM

Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.


No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"
 
2013-05-07 12:04:21 PM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.

We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.


Why are you bragging about US imperialist policy? What's in it for you?
 
2013-05-07 12:04:21 PM

mrshowrules: You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.


Islamism isn't a religion, it's a political ideology.  Think Judaism vs. Zionism.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:54 PM

bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.

No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"


So, you fell for the media bluster and hyperbole?  And you're aware that it's media bluster and hyperbole?

lol wtf man.  Are you seriously going to point the finger at the media and whine that they tricked you into thinking the wrong thing?
 
2013-05-07 12:06:01 PM

Car_Ramrod: Obama says "using chem weapons is crossing a red line and won't be tolerated". We get conflicting reports of possible use of chem weapons. Obama doesn't bomb them immediately. Obama is a weakling offering empty threats.

There, I think I've summarized things pretty well.


Meanwhile, Israel violates international law (again) with no repercussions.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:39 PM

Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.


The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:50 PM

whidbey: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.

We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.

Why are you bragging about US imperialist policy? What's in it for you?


it's kinda the 'opposite' of imperialist policy when you get the whole region, NATO and the UN behind your actions.  You do realize that, right?
 
2013-05-07 12:07:14 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: It's the "red line" business that is causing Obama grief. He wanted to sound genuinely threatening while remaining vague; unfortunately a line is a line, and when it gets crossed, it's generally verifiable. The result clause of the threat wasn't explicitly violent, but the "change my calculus" implied intervention, given that the "calculus" up to this point has consisted largely of non-intervention.


Are you people posting from the future, where the red line was unequivocally crossed and nothing was done? Because here in our current timeline, this stuff's still being investigated.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:51 PM

Infernalist: bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.

No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"

So, you fell for the media bluster and hyperbole?  And you're aware that it's media bluster and hyperbole?

lol wtf man.  Are you seriously going t ...


You are either a troll or downright retarded. I have neither the time or inclination to teach you how to read and understand the words that I write.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:00 PM

LasersHurt: Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"?


I'll let the administration tell you:

Senior officials in the Obama administration took to the pages of The New York Times over the weekend to announce that the problem with our Syria policy was the president.
Everything would have been fine, it seems, except for the fact that Barack Obama, out of nowhere last summer, decided to call Syrian use of chemical weapons a "red line" and declared their use would be a "game changer."
The "nuance" was lost, one complained to the Times. It was "completely unscripted," whined another. They didn't want him to be "trap[ed]... into any predetermined action" by his own words, and yet, he just went and did it anyway!
 
2013-05-07 12:08:07 PM

Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.


My point is America can't keep doing these "well we justify it because it offends us".....that's nuts. You do realize that right? The world is full of dictators and bad people. It's been that way since...forever. Unless they (agents) attack your country, your assets or your people, and declare that a state of war exists between you and them, what your country is doing is wrong and illegal. You don't own the planet. It's not yours to say what's right or wrong. Sure, what Assad is doing is bad. But. What your response would be is tantamount to saying the world has to live by the rules set by the United States. It's asking the rest of the world to accept you as dictators. Personally, my reaction is come to my country (Canada) and dictate what's essentially an internal civil war. Expect me to go to yours somewhere down the road.
You wouldn't like it if Russia said "we don't like what's happening in Arizona, regarding your gun laws, so we're just going to send this military expiditionary force to enforce what we feel should be happening". You'd never allow that. Why do you think even for a second that Syria, and the Muslim world would sit idley by and let you do the same. It's a sh*tty thing happening in Syria, but it's Syria.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:16 PM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

Islamism isn't a religion, it's a political ideology.  Think Judaism vs. Zionism.


Pretty sure Islam is a religion, dude. Over a billion people practice it.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:29 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.

The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.


You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ.  Own it, it's yours.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:38 PM

whidbey: Meanwhile, Israel violates international law (again) with no repercussions.


That's an awesome observation; you should post a link to a news article about that and start a conversation there.
 
2013-05-07 12:09:01 PM
www.bloomberg.com
 
2013-05-07 12:09:20 PM

bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: Infernalist: bdub77: LasersHurt: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I guess for me the issue is that I don't know his definition of "red line" and what that means and entails.

I gathered that the "red line" Obama spoke of represented a point at which the nature of our involvement would escalate drastically.  I think it's fair to say that such an escalation has not happened, despite the threshold being crossed, and that creates a bit of a credibility problem.  I imagine Obama would take back those words if he could.

I agree that he'd avoid it if he could, but even his original statement was "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

I'm not even 100% convinced the line has been crossed, since they were used once (and even then it's been hard to pin down EXACTLY by whom, why, and how much they have).

Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Obama says this: "We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

News headline reads: Chemical Weapons 'Red Line' for Obama

And you read 'military action' somewhere in that?  That's a huge assumption on your part.

No, the news media implied that. That's my point. Media gets more out of that headline than saying "Obama would reconsider military support at large-scale usage or movement of chemical weapons"

So, you fell for the media bluster and hyperbole?  And you're aware that it's media bluster and hyperbole?

lol wtf man.  Are you seri ...


Good bye, brave sir robin.
 
2013-05-07 12:10:08 PM
He just won't stay dead

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-07 12:10:55 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: whidbey: Meanwhile, Israel violates international law (again) with no repercussions.

That's an awesome observation; you should post a link to a news article about that and start a conversation there.


Pretty sure it belongs here. Israel is the reason why Syria is gearing up to be a big deal.

Sorry you don't like it when people call out right-wing Zionist neocon chickenshiats for what they are.
 
2013-05-07 12:11:19 PM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.

The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.

You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ.  Own it, it's yours.


The nuances of international diplomacy are rather lost on you, aren't they?
 
2013-05-07 12:12:10 PM

Tyee: LasersHurt: Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"?

I'll let the administration tell you:

Senior officials in the Obama administration took to the pages of The New York Times over the weekend to announce that the problem with our Syria policy was the president.
Everything would have been fine, it seems, except for the fact that Barack Obama, out of nowhere last summer, decided to call Syrian use of chemical weapons a "red line" and declared their use would be a "game changer."
The "nuance" was lost, one complained to the Times. It was "completely unscripted," whined another. They didn't want him to be "trap[ed]... into any predetermined action" by his own words, and yet, he just went and did it anyway!


So you're one of those that believes "red line" that would "change the calculus" means "as soon as chemical weapons are used once, Obama has to bomb someone"? Or do you believe there is room for nuance?

While I don't doubt that he'd take it back if he could, people are reading in whatever they want and blaming the President for not doing that.
 
2013-05-07 12:12:20 PM

The Numbers: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.

The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.

You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ.  Own it, it's yours.

The nuances of international diplomacy are rather lost on you, aren't they?


Pretty sure he's just threadsh*tting at this point. Let's be honest he jacked this thread with bluster and attack rhetoric.
 
2013-05-07 12:13:44 PM

olderbudnoweiser: [www.bloomberg.com image 620x357]


4,797 Americans killed in the Chicago War since 9/11/2001.

/everything is relative
//just sayin'
 
2013-05-07 12:13:47 PM

indarwinsshadow: Infernalist: indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.

I'm not against using force on people who've plainly earned it.  Like Assad.  I'm just against 'stupid use' of force.  Like Iraq.

Libya was a perfect example of how to wage war in the 21st century.  You get the UN behind you, the regional powers behind you and the legitimate support of the people behind you and you're golden.

I realized that Libya was the first time since WWII that we fought a conflict on the side of the angels.

My point is America can't keep doing these "well we justify it because it offends us".....that's nuts. You do realize that right? The world is full of dictators and bad people. It's been that way since...forever. Unless they (agents) attack your country, your assets or your people, and declare that a state of war exists between you and them, what your country is doing is wrong and illegal. You don't own the planet. It's not yours to say what's right or wrong. Sure, what Assad is doing is bad. But. What your response would be is tantamount to saying the world has to live by the rules set by the United States. It's asking the rest of the world to accept you as dictators. Personally, my reaction is come to my country (Canada) and dictate what's essentially an internal civil war. Expect me to go to yours somewhere down the road.
You wouldn't like it if Russia said "we don't like what's happening in Arizona, regarding your gun laws, so we're just going to send this military expiditionary force to enforce what we feel should be happening". You'd never allow that. Why do you think even for a second that Syria, and the Muslim world would sit idley by and let you do the same. It's a sh*tty thing happening in Syria, but it's Syria.


Because we don't live in a world of self-contained nations where what happens within those nations don't effect the nations outside.

The first reason we had to step into Libya was that Daffy's lunacy was driving droves of refugees into Egypt, which was still dealing with instability from their overthrowing of Mubarek.

And then there was the fact that the instability in Libya was effecting the recovery of the European economy, threatening that recovery by fluctuating fuel prices drastically.

Nations effect nations.  Add to that, the simple fact that the entire region eventually wanted us to step in and take action.

And when you boil it right on down to the truth, we did it for economic reasons and humanitarian reasons.  And when it comes to Nations, the UN has the final say-so in what's legal and what's not.  And Libya was a righteous actions in their eyes.
 
2013-05-07 12:13:50 PM

pxsteel: Don't act tough if you are not, it just makes you look foolish.

\I personally don't care to see us get involved


He does look foolish and some people are getting mad because it is being  noticed, like we're not supposed to notice.

The USA shouldn't get involved in anyway period!  it a no win.  This is what the UN was set up for and rarely ever accomplishes.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:33 PM

bdub77: The Numbers: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: You personally 'read' what you 'wanted' to read from that. You should stop assuming shiat.

The administration should stop making vague, ambiguous threats.

You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ.  Own it, it's yours.

The nuances of international diplomacy are rather lost on you, aren't they?

Pretty sure he's just threadsh*tting at this point. Let's be honest he jacked this thread with bluster and attack rhetoric.


Calling me a troll doesn't negate my points, you know.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:43 PM

whidbey: Pretty sure Islam is a religion, dude. Over a billion people practice it.


I'll repeat, Islam isn't the same as Islamism.

You're unusually obtuse this week.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:58 PM

Infernalist: whidbey: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.

We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.

Why are you bragging about US imperialist policy? What's in it for you?

it's kinda the 'opposite' of imperialist policy when you get the whole region, NATO and the UN behind your actions.  You do realize that, right?


Um. you just said NATO was the US. You're slipping. Also, Iraq. And now Syria.

You're basically a fanboy for US imperialist aggression. Admit it.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:13 PM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


Meh, the site is Breitbart.

Not even worth clicking to see what wharglbargl they're spouting this time.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:24 PM

Infernalist: You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ. Own it, it's yours.


When you're the most power man on the planet, you shouldn't say all options are on the table if the most powerful and meaningful option isn't on the table.

President Obama (being the smartest man in the world) should know this.
 
2013-05-07 12:17:29 PM

whidbey: Pretty sure it belongs here. Israel is the reason why Syria is gearing up to be a big deal.

Sorry you don't like it when people call out right-wing Zionist neocon chickenshiats for what they are.


I can forgive your threadshiatting, but I cannot forgive your use of the tired device of "apologizing" as a passive-aggressive method of verbal attack.

Has Obama said anything, one way or the other, about the Israel airstrikes that is substantive?
 
2013-05-07 12:17:37 PM

GoldSpider: whidbey: Pretty sure Islam is a religion, dude. Over a billion people practice it.

I'll repeat, Islam isn't the same as Islamism.

You're unusually obtuse this week.


I wouldn't be charging others with the "obtuse" label given the pwnage in the latest gun thread.
 
2013-05-07 12:17:47 PM
Is the point here that large amounts of chemical weapons being used by the Assad regime should not change how Obama thinks about the situation?
 
2013-05-07 12:18:36 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Has Obama said anything, one way or the other, about the Israel airstrikes that is substantive?


Yeah he came out and said they were justified and Israel had a right to do them, and more in the future if necessary
 
2013-05-07 12:18:51 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: whidbey: Pretty sure it belongs here. Israel is the reason why Syria is gearing up to be a big deal.

Sorry you don't like it when people call out right-wing Zionist neocon chickenshiats for what they are.

I can forgive your threadshiatting, but I cannot forgive your use of the tired device of "apologizing" as a passive-aggressive method of verbal attack.

Has Obama said anything, one way or the other, about the Israel airstrikes that is substantive?


Because mentioning once that Israel is a huge international problem=threadshiatting

And I'm calling YOU out, not Obama.
 
2013-05-07 12:20:23 PM

whidbey: Infernalist: whidbey: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: lol daffy says what?

NATO != UN

LasersHurt: Accepting that it has, the statement is that it would "change the calculus." How this translates into "immediate action that I find soothing when I hear it in the news" I do not know.

Sounds like a good opportunity for some clarification from the administration.

We had UN support for the Libyan intervention.  NATO 'is' the US, no matter what anyone else might tell you.

Why are you bragging about US imperialist policy? What's in it for you?

it's kinda the 'opposite' of imperialist policy when you get the whole region, NATO and the UN behind your actions.  You do realize that, right?

Um. you just said NATO was the US. You're slipping. Also, Iraq. And now Syria.

You're basically a fanboy for US imperialist aggression. Admit it.


You would be wrong.  I hated what we did in Iraq.  It was stupid, it was pointless, it was wasteful.  No one wanted us there, no one asked for our help and they hated us for it.

Now, Libya...Libya makes me proud of what we can do as a nation when we do it the 'right way'.  And yes, that was the 'right way' to wage war.  Something we haven't done in a while.

If we can duplicate that political lightning in getting the region to unite against Assad and get the okay from the UN, then we can see about dealing with Assad, but I don't see that happening.

As many have said, the situations aren't the same.  Until we get a united Syrian opposition force that we can negotiate with and ensure that they play according to some agreed-upon rules(no becoming like Iran), and get the region to unite against Assad, we're not going to do a damned thing.
 
2013-05-07 12:22:22 PM

LasersHurt: So you're one of those that believes "red line" that would "change the calculus" means "as soon as chemical weapons are used once, Obama has to bomb someone"?


No, not at all.  And I sure am glad he hasn't.

What does or did it mean?  And please tell the administration because as they pointed out, they think his comment is the problem and he is now stepping his own shiat.
 
2013-05-07 12:22:34 PM

Headso: The right wing nutters still stop short of saying what we should actually do in Syria, they just know one thing for sure their top priority, they want to make fartbongo look bad.


They absolutely need to be able to oppose whatever he's doing. At least now they appear to have realized recording gear exists, so they're not publicly contradicting themselves week-to-week.

/day-to-day...
 
2013-05-07 12:22:35 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Infernalist: You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ. Own it, it's yours.

When you're the most power man on the planet, you shouldn't say all options are on the table if the most powerful and meaningful option isn't on the table.

President Obama (being the smartest man in the world) should know this.


So, because he was cautious enough to say that 'all options are on the table', that means he's going to go to military action if chemical weapons are used?

Again, lots of assumption in your assessment.
 
2013-05-07 12:23:50 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Infernalist: You read it a public political statement as a threat even though there was no mention of any military action or corresponding details regarding a military action of chemical weapons were used.

You read into a vague statement what you WANTED TO READ. Own it, it's yours.

When you're the most power man on the planet, you shouldn't say all options are on the table if the most powerful and meaningful option isn't on the table.

President Obama (being the smartest man in the world) should know this.


And which option would that be? I can think of some pretty powerful options that aren't really options ever in this type of conflict.

Best case for the US using its military power: you use Israel to fight a proxy war, maybe inject small teams of special forces, and use air support. You target chemical weapons and take them out of the equation entirely. Provide humanitarian aid to allies and border countries to tackle refugees. Let the war play out.

The US is not going to send masses of troops into Syria under Obama. Period.
 
2013-05-07 12:25:09 PM

Infernalist: Until we get a united Syrian opposition force that we can negotiate with and ensure that they play according to some agreed-upon rules(no becoming like Iran)


Well played, sir.
 
2013-05-07 12:26:04 PM

Tyee: LasersHurt: So you're one of those that believes "red line" that would "change the calculus" means "as soon as chemical weapons are used once, Obama has to bomb someone"?

No, not at all.  And I sure am glad he hasn't.

What does or did it mean?  And please tell the administration because as they pointed out, they think his comment is the problem and he is now stepping his own shiat.


I don't get the leap of logic. We're not sure what it means, but we're sure he's not living up to it. Whatever it is. Definitely.
 
2013-05-07 12:26:16 PM

Tatsuma: GoldSpider: Now where have we heard that before?

Everyone knows that? Is that seriously news to you?

Infernalist: Nothing would have happened to Daffy without American resources and/or logistic support. That's why we were so critical to things working in that intervention.

It absolutely could have happened. Do you really think that if France had decided to go at it on their own they would not have been able to? Are you serious?


Your "facts" sound an AWFUL lot like your "opinions."

I can see your frustration that people seem to be confusing them in this thread.
 
2013-05-07 12:26:30 PM

Infernalist: You're basically a fanboy for US imperialist aggression. Admit it.

You would be wrong.  I hated what we did in Iraq.  It was stupid, it was pointless, it was wasteful.  No one wanted us there, no one asked for our help and they hated us for it.


Yeah but you inconveniently forgot about Iraq when you said

When we bring that meddling/force to bear upon dictators, they seem to like us a lot more.

You're basically using the same kind of justification we used there.

Now, Libya...Libya makes me proud of what we can do as a nation when we do it the 'right way'. And yes, that was the 'right way' to wage war. Something we haven't done in a while.

Dude, it was another waste of military resources to protect oil interests. Stop fooling yourself. Yes, there was some international support. Doesn't make it any less of a waste.

As many have said, the situations aren't the same. Until we get a united Syrian opposition force that we can negotiate with and ensure that they play according to some agreed-upon rules(no becoming like Iran), and get the region to unite against Assad, we're not going to do a damned thing.

Except continue to meddle with their internal affairs using covert operations and blatant threats of attack.

Dude, we're no angels here. And Syria has been on the dartboard for a long time.
 
2013-05-07 12:27:30 PM
You see, it's not a matter of whether we get involved or not in the affairs of another country. It's about leadership, which is sorely lacking. This level of incompetence in handling world affairs would be laughable, if it weren't for the fact that many innocent men, women, and children are dying.
 
2013-05-07 12:28:31 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: Until we get a united Syrian opposition force that we can negotiate with and ensure that they play according to some agreed-upon rules(no becoming like Iran)

Well played, sir.


I didn't say 'based on Islamic law', I said 'no becoming like Iran'.

Getting freaked out about a Islamic country basing their secular law on Islamic law is like freaking out over a Christian country basing their secular law on Christian law.
 
2013-05-07 12:28:42 PM

Agneska: You see, it's not a matter of whether we get involved or not in the affairs of another country. It's about leadership, which is sorely lacking. This level of incompetence in handling world affairs would be laughable, if it weren't for the fact that many innocent men, women, and children are dying.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
2013-05-07 12:28:55 PM

whidbey: Because mentioning once that Israel is a huge international problem=threadshiatting


More like once a nanosecond; but the point isn't that a critical discussion of Israel is "not allowed"; if anything, the Israeli strike makes the issue more difficult for countries like Turkey to stand a strong stand against Assad.

Should the United States government continue to call for a peaceful solution to the Syrian issue?

whidbey: And I'm calling YOU out, not Obama.


You are free to be abrasive and obnoxious and other people are free to label that behavior as "threadshiatting."
 
2013-05-07 12:29:08 PM

Agneska: You see, it's not a matter of whether we get involved or not in the affairs of another country.


Except that's precisely the matter here.  What gives us the authority, legal or moral, to get involved in Syria?
 
2013-05-07 12:30:34 PM

whidbey: Infernalist: You're basically a fanboy for US imperialist aggression. Admit it.

You would be wrong.  I hated what we did in Iraq.  It was stupid, it was pointless, it was wasteful.  No one wanted us there, no one asked for our help and they hated us for it.

Yeah but you inconveniently forgot about Iraq when you said

When we bring that meddling/force to bear upon dictators, they seem to like us a lot more.

You're basically using the same kind of justification we used there.

Now, Libya...Libya makes me proud of what we can do as a nation when we do it the 'right way'. And yes, that was the 'right way' to wage war. Something we haven't done in a while.

Dude, it was another waste of military resources to protect oil interests. Stop fooling yourself. Yes, there was some international support. Doesn't make it any less of a waste.

As many have said, the situations aren't the same. Until we get a united Syrian opposition force that we can negotiate with and ensure that they play according to some agreed-upon rules(no becoming like Iran), and get the region to unite against Assad, we're not going to do a damned thing.

Except continue to meddle with their internal affairs using covert operations and blatant threats of attack.

Dude, we're no angels here. And Syria has been on the dartboard for a long time.


Right.  Basically, SOP.  Did you think I was comparing the US foreign policy to angels?  lol why?  And what does our 'standard' policy of dealing with unfriendly governments have to do with my discussion of why an overt military intervention in Syria isn't likely at the moment?
 
2013-05-07 12:30:54 PM
It Tuesday.  So is Obama a warmongering tyrant who would send drones inside America's borders or an appeaser who apologizes to everyone?  Which talking point are they going with today.
 
2013-05-07 12:31:00 PM

Infernalist: So, because he was cautious enough to say that 'all options are on the table', that means he's going to go to military action if chemical weapons are used?


no that means he could go to war. I don't want him to but saying that people misunderstood him is simplistic and stupid.

Infernalist: Again, lots of assumption in your assessment.


No, just one assumption. I assume that when he says that all options are open that all options are open. I know this is a dangerous assumption when a politician is involved
 
2013-05-07 12:31:56 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: whidbey: Because mentioning once that Israel is a huge international problem=threadshiatting

More like once a nanosecond; but the point isn't that a critical discussion of Israel is "not allowed"; if anything, the Israeli strike makes the issue more difficult for countries like Turkey to stand a strong stand against Assad.


So we agree. What's the big deal?

Should the United States government continue to call for a peaceful solution to the Syrian issue?

That is the issue.

whidbey: And I'm calling YOU out, not Obama.

You are free to be abrasive and obnoxious and other people are free to label that behavior as "threadshiatting."


I honestly have no idea why you are attacking me. Cut it out.
 
2013-05-07 12:33:28 PM

bdub77: And which option would that be? I can think of some pretty powerful options that aren't really options ever in this type of conflict.

Best case for the US using its military power: you use Israel to fight a proxy war, maybe inject small teams of special forces, and use air support. You target chemical weapons and take them out of the equation entirely. Provide humanitarian aid to allies and border countries to tackle refugees. Let the war play out.


So just like Libya. I've already praised the President for his handling of that conflict so no need to repeat myself.

bdub77: The US is not going to send masses of troops into Syria under Obama. Period.


I hope you are right.
 
2013-05-07 12:33:32 PM

Infernalist: Dude, we're no angels here. And Syria has been on the dartboard for a long time.

Right.  Basically, SOP.  Did you think I was comparing the US foreign policy to angels?  lol why?  And what does our 'standard' policy of dealing with unfriendly governments have to do with my discussion of why an overt military intervention in Syria isn't likely at the moment?


I dunno, man, it sounded like you were off on a tangent where you were praising the trillions of dollars wasted in stupid foreign policy decisions of the past 10 years. Felt the need to speak up.
 
2013-05-07 12:34:15 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Infernalist: So, because he was cautious enough to say that 'all options are on the table', that means he's going to go to military action if chemical weapons are used?

no that means he could go to war. I don't want him to but saying that people misunderstood him is simplistic and stupid.

Infernalist: Again, lots of assumption in your assessment.

No, just one assumption. I assume that when he says that all options are open that all options are open. I know this is a dangerous assumption when a politician is involved


People assumed that his vague statement meant something in particular, even though he deliberately made it a vague statement.  The fact that they assumed something that turned out to be wrong is not the president's fault.  They should stop assuming stuff and simply wait and see what comes of it, if anything.
 
2013-05-07 12:34:30 PM

Agneska: You see, it's not a matter of whether we get involved or not in the affairs of another country. It's about leadership, which is sorely lacking. This level of incompetence in handling world affairs would be laughable, if it weren't for the fact that many innocent men, women, and children are dying.


Leadership got us into Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush had no problem starting wars in those countries. It was almost an afterthought, really. And what has that gotten us as a country? What would happen if our wars cost so much that the US system imploded and 300 million US citizens are now suffering? Who says that hasn't already happened to a degree?

Plenty of innocent men, women, and children die in civil wars. But that doesn't mean more wouldn't die after some side of the conflict won. History is full of regimes that fell and were replaced by even worse regimes.

If you want to be a leader, maybe you should start donating to aid agencies, or collecting donations for them. War totally sucks, but I disagree that this is something people should go into without any foresight. That's just plain stupid.
 
2013-05-07 12:35:44 PM

whidbey: Infernalist: Dude, we're no angels here. And Syria has been on the dartboard for a long time.

Right.  Basically, SOP.  Did you think I was comparing the US foreign policy to angels?  lol why?  And what does our 'standard' policy of dealing with unfriendly governments have to do with my discussion of why an overt military intervention in Syria isn't likely at the moment?

I dunno, man, it sounded like you were off on a tangent where you were praising the trillions of dollars wasted in stupid foreign policy decisions of the past 10 years. Felt the need to speak up.


If anything, I was praising our handling of Libya and raging about the stupidity of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Libya is how it 'should' be done.  Every damned time.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:30 PM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.

Islamism isn't a religion, it's a political ideology.  Think Judaism vs. Zionism.


Different form Christian Conservatism how?  Conflating it with a terrorist organization is just wrong.
 
2013-05-07 12:41:55 PM

mrshowrules: Different form Christian Conservatism how?


Not terribly different from conservatives who advocate more laws based on the Bible.
 
2013-05-07 12:43:03 PM

Fart_Machine: It Tuesday.  So is Obama a warmongering tyrant who would send drones inside America's borders or an appeaser who apologizes to everyone?  Which talking point are they going with today.


I don't know, but don't forget that he's black. That has to count for something.
 
2013-05-07 12:43:45 PM

Lorelle: I don't know, but don't forget that he's black.


Whaa???
 
2013-05-07 12:45:00 PM

Infernalist: People assumed that his vague statement meant something in particular, even though he deliberately made it a vague statement. The fact that they assumed something that turned out to be wrong is not the president's fault. They should stop assuming stuff and simply wait and see what comes of it, if anything.


You were throwing around some personal attacks for people daring to think that the President meant he would attack if chemical weapons were used. Clearly he implied that it was an option. Why else would he say that?? The President would say if he intended to go to the UN for sanctions if he planned on going to the UN for sanctions. He has made that threat before and he has carried out that threat before. Now a sitting President will never say "Do this and we'll kick your arse!". Even GWB was coy enough to say "They'll hear from us soon".
 
2013-05-07 12:45:02 PM

bdub77: Agneska: You see, it's not a matter of whether we get involved or not in the affairs of another country. It's about leadership, which is sorely lacking. This level of incompetence in handling world affairs would be laughable, if it weren't for the fact that many innocent men, women, and children are dying.

Leadership got us into Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush had no problem starting wars in those countries. It was almost an afterthought, really. And what has that gotten us as a country? What would happen if our wars cost so much that the US system imploded and 300 million US citizens are now suffering? Who says that hasn't already happened to a degree?

Plenty of innocent men, women, and children die in civil wars. But that doesn't mean more wouldn't die after some side of the conflict won. History is full of regimes that fell and were replaced by even worse regimes.

If you want to be a leader, maybe you should start donating to aid agencies, or collecting donations for them. War totally sucks, but I disagree that this is something people should go into without any foresight. That's just plain stupid.


Don't get your panties in a bunch, honey. If you don't think a few dead brown people is our problem, then so be it.
 
2013-05-07 12:45:21 PM

Rwa2play: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Assad still has what? 10 maybe 13 UN resolutions before the strongly worded letter?

I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?


The reverse of that is why not Syria if it was OK to engage Libya?  What is the difference-OIL maybe?

Shouldn't the "progressives" be taking the lead in pointing that out after all, according to the, that is the only reason the US does anything although at times they have trouble agreeing about that. Take Liberia for example. First they sniveled because we did not intervene and they said it was because Liberia did not have oil Then when we do intervene it is because they do have oil. I think they are just looking for a reason to hate on America.:

How could America be so cold, callous, insolent and heartless of one of the few places it colonized? While Liberia does not have oil and its people are Black; these were not the concerns when just a few decades ago America stripped the nation of its precious rubber commodities and other natural resources


hands off liberia! While Liberia itself does not contain oil, the nearby Gulf of Guinea does. shington is maneuvering to outflank Paris in its own backyard. It is casting around looking for bases and a foothold from which to dominate existing oil fields, such as those in Nigeria, and to begin exploiting the untapped reserves in the Gulf of Guinea.

Heck according to some progressives oil is the reason we went into the Balkans Link
 
2013-05-07 12:46:30 PM

LasersHurt: I don't get the leap of logic. We're not sure what it means, but we're sure he's not living up to it. Whatever it is. Definitely.


Whatever he meant, it sure seems like he doesn't mean that now, unless he meant that he would do nothing which is exactly what I believe he should continue to do, but he won't because he usually does what I don't want him to do, which makes us all (including his administration apparently) wonder why he said it in the first place.  He put his foot in his mouth, stepped in his own shiat, pick a euphemism of your own liking, he did it.

So the answer to your question of me;  Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"? has been answered by his administration, to continue to deny it looks silly don't you think?
 
2013-05-07 12:48:21 PM

Tyee: LasersHurt: I don't get the leap of logic. We're not sure what it means, but we're sure he's not living up to it. Whatever it is. Definitely.

Whatever he meant, it sure seems like he doesn't mean that now, unless he meant that he would do nothing which is exactly what I believe he should continue to do, but he won't because he usually does what I don't want him to do, which makes us all (including his administration apparently) wonder why he said it in the first place.  He put his foot in his mouth, stepped in his own shiat, pick a euphemism of your own liking, he did it.

So the answer to your question of me;  Please, do tell how he "put his foot into his own mouth"? has been answered by his administration, to continue to deny it looks silly don't you think?


No, because that isn't an answer at all. That's you saying "whatever it is, is wrong, and this unnamed anonymous source also says it's bad."

I think it looks incredibly, awfully silly to say "nobody knows what it meant, but he's definitely wrong, because whatever he has done I don't think it was enough according to my best guess of what it meant."
 
2013-05-07 12:49:02 PM
 I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.

Irish already own the rights


Let's party with these guys


images.nationalgeographic.com
 
2013-05-07 12:51:11 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Infernalist: People assumed that his vague statement meant something in particular, even though he deliberately made it a vague statement. The fact that they assumed something that turned out to be wrong is not the president's fault. They should stop assuming stuff and simply wait and see what comes of it, if anything.

You were throwing around some personal attacks for people daring to think that the President meant he would attack if chemical weapons were used. Clearly he implied that it was an option. Why else would he say that?? The President would say if he intended to go to the UN for sanctions if he planned on going to the UN for sanctions. He has made that threat before and he has carried out that threat before. Now a sitting President will never say "Do this and we'll kick your arse!". Even GWB was coy enough to say "They'll hear from us soon".


I threw comments at people who were furious that what they thought was going to happen at a certain point, ended up not happening at all.

If people want to assume that the President is going to jump to military action based on a vague statement regarding keeping his options open, that's one thing, but when they get stupid-mad about it and use it as an excuse to attack the man, then that's just retarded.
 
2013-05-07 12:55:59 PM

Agneska: Don't get your panties in a bunch, honey. If you don't think a few dead brown people is our problem, then so be it.


I care about all people. But we can't help all people. It would of course be easier to take care of people if people stopped making more people faster than some populations can support them. Because we can't take care of all people, we should have a limited role in the governance of other countries. The US has been World Police for a long while now, and it has cost us a lot domestically. And last time I checked, Syria is not in the United States. So generally yeah I believe it's not something we should get majorly involved in.

We should however take full responsibility for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, because we invaded those countries. Interest in Pakistan is considerable because of the chance of nuclear arms getting into the wrong hands. Other than that - I would love to shrink our military by a great degree, because I think we could put the money to use elsewhere.
 
2013-05-07 12:56:43 PM
Leadership that get's us into a another clusterfark with a middle east country, with the certainty that Americans will die for it, is just beyond dumb at this point.  Funding to Turkey and Jordan to support the refugees, however, is great.  Listening to McCain and Graham talk about this, you just know they come loaded to the gills with Viagra at the thought of another war.  Why?  Why is it OUR job to play world police?  What partner do we have in Syria that gives even a 25% chance of a good outcome?  NO ONE ELSE CARES. As for legal authority, we haven't worried about that much in the past - it's the end result that we want to see - a somewhat stable, not overtly hostile government.  Egypt will take time, but we didn't screw over the people.  Libya will take time, but we SUPPORTED the people.  Syria?  Which people are we talking about?  It's not Libya - it's Iraq. If I were Iraq, I'd never forget getting invaded and losing 100,000+ dead - when the Pyrhic victory is so gross in nature as to be virtually useless. There's no "good" outcome - it's bad either way.  Trying to provide humanitarian aid is all we can and should do, because there will never be an ally in that state - so why McCain and Graham are so excited is beyond me.  Send 'em guns if you must, but providing a No Flyover zone is just dead Americans waiting to happen.  Cruise missiles is pretty damn close to declaring War.  For what?  And as for all these "other middle easter nations" asking us to step in?  I must have missed that greeting card. Maybe Jordan and Turkey because they'll be the ones getting hammered with refugees.
 
2013-05-07 01:05:47 PM
indarwinsshadow: *clutching at pearls..*

Fine, just stay in your farking igloo.
Sometimes you just have to smack the crap out of a bully rather than stand there with your frikkin' hands in your pockets while he whales away on the meek and defenseless.
 
2013-05-07 01:09:35 PM
So wait a minute here, Breitbart.com is complaining that Obama is treading very cautiously on the decision to take military action in Syria? Seriously? They still haven't learned the lesson from Bush's disaster, have they?
 
2013-05-07 01:10:24 PM

LasersHurt: No, because that isn't an answer at all. That's you saying "whatever it is, is wrong, and this unnamed anonymous source also says it's bad."


Sunday's NYT.
And "Whatever it is"...what was it?  Never mind I'm done for now.

You're probably right, you must be right... because Obama is always right.

Don't take me too seriously, I don't.  Good Luck.
~I'm right this time though.
 
2013-05-07 01:12:20 PM

Tyee: LasersHurt: No, because that isn't an answer at all. That's you saying "whatever it is, is wrong, and this unnamed anonymous source also says it's bad."

Sunday's NYT.
And "Whatever it is"...what was it?  Never mind I'm done for now.

You're probably right, you must be right... because Obama is always right.

Don't take me too seriously, I don't.  Good Luck.
~I'm right this time though.


No, you're not. You haven't made any ACTUAL statements. You just asserted that he has crossed some sort of line he set, without following through - but NONE of that was explicitly stated.

You have to personally MAKE UP THE RULES, then say he violated them, which is absurd.

/hop off the "Obama is always right" cross. He's not always right, but you're still wrong, now.
 
2013-05-07 01:24:01 PM

Infernalist: I threw comments at people who were furious that what they thought was going to happen at a certain point, ended up not happening at all.

If people want to assume that the President is going to jump to military action based on a vague statement regarding keeping his options open, that's one thing, but when they get stupid-mad about it and use it as an excuse to attack the man, then that's just retarded.


Well something should have happened. You don't talk about a "red" line in the sand and then do nothing. Now!! Wait a minute! I dont want to go to war! Like the vast majority of people in here and like the people you were calling names we wished the President never said those words. If the President is a smart man he'd know better than to say shiat like this. Some people talk about the GOP beating the war drums?! I don't believe in code words and other such bs (ie: when one politician "targets" another they dont mean shooting them in the head) but really?! You had to say "red" line in the sand?! humm what's red? You think he is talking about paint? How about beet juice? Yeah that's it! The President of the United States was talking about a beet juice line in the sand if chemical weapons were used. There is no way he was talking about lines made of blood.
 
2013-05-07 01:31:12 PM
Pish posh.

Asad is willing to play nice with the west regarding Syrian resources and no one knows what the rebels will do if they gain power.

The US, like all great powers, cares little or nothing for so called human rights, it cares about consolidating power, protecting business interests and stability. At any cost and no mater how much blood is shed.

You could easily insert The UK, or Russia or France into that statement, it just so happens we're talking about the US.

Nothing will happen unless Assad pisses off the wrong people about the wrong things...
 
2013-05-07 01:33:57 PM

make me some tea: So wait a minute here, Breitbart.com is complaining that Obama is treading very cautiously on the decision to take military action in Syria? Seriously? They still haven't learned the lesson from Bush's disaster, have they?


Disaster? What Disaster? Bush kept this country safe no matter the cost, amirite?
 
2013-05-07 01:36:14 PM
These things take time.

We need to find lying witnesses like the Saudi princess who claimed to be from the United Arab Emirates during the first Iraq war or Chalabi for the second Iraq war.

Then we need to coordinate their lies with lies from other country's intelligence agencies. I'm looking at you MI-9 and 3/4.

Then we have to take those lies to the UN and the world community with spiffy media presentations loaded with graphs, pictures and menacing phrases like "death is pounding on the front door" or "is your mother's life not worth some sacrifice".

Then we have to start hiring thousands of contractors from a handful of companies in order to line the pockets of war profiteers.

Then and only then can we locate an innocent country that is both oil-rich and defense-poor so we can vent our righteous fighting spirit while at the same time strengthening the vertical integration of a few oil monopolies.

Then, as soon as we have another Bush elected, we can go in low, hot and heavy. And God will surely be on our side.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:55 PM
AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe we should just butt out and let this thing play itself out.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-05-07 01:37:21 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Infernalist: I threw comments at people who were furious that what they thought was going to happen at a certain point, ended up not happening at all.

If people want to assume that the President is going to jump to military action based on a vague statement regarding keeping his options open, that's one thing, but when they get stupid-mad about it and use it as an excuse to attack the man, then that's just retarded.

Well something should have happened. You don't talk about a "red" line in the sand and then do nothing. Now!! Wait a minute! I dont want to go to war! Like the vast majority of people in here and like the people you were calling names we wished the President never said those words. If the President is a smart man he'd know better than to say shiat like this. Some people talk about the GOP beating the war drums?! I don't believe in code words and other such bs (ie: when one politician "targets" another they dont mean shooting them in the head) but really?! You had to say "red" line in the sand?! humm what's red? You think he is talking about paint? How about beet juice? Yeah that's it! The President of the United States was talking about a beet juice line in the sand if chemical weapons were used. There is no way he was talking about lines made of blood.


The don't know who used the chemical weapons yet.  Do you know something the administration doesn't?  If so, you should contact the CIA hotline with your important information.
 
2013-05-07 01:38:42 PM

Two16: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe we should just butt out and let this thing play itself out.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 379x316]


Canada fought in WWI & WWII.  US later joined in.
Canada went to Afghanistan but not Iraq
Canada fought in Korea but not Vietnam.

My best advice is to ask Canada what they are going to do.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:28 PM
Man, there's a lot of focus on Syria since the Iran propaganda fell flat on its face.
 
2013-05-07 01:40:27 PM
"We've long said..."
It's been 600 days."
"That would be 'long'..."
"Well hurry up and do something so we can condemn you for it!"

Suppose Obama's threat had caused Assad to throw in the towel. Nobody would be complaining then. It was a gambit, it didn't work, or hasn't yet. Meanwhile, no American lives have been lost, no American boots are on the ground, all options are still open. It's a crying shame that so many Syrians have died, but whose fault is that? The Syrians. The US can't allow itself to be drawn into every sectarian fight in the world, even for humanitarian reasons, and in the final analysis the on-going strife in Syria serves the political purposes of all the involved parties except the Syrians themselves, the Iranians, the Chinese and the Russians. I'll bet damn few Lebanese are upset about the loss of life and political turmoil in the country that invaded and then occupied them for nearly thirty years.

Democracy isn't coming any time soon to Syria, regardless of who wins and regardless of the outcome, or even our involvement in it, the Syria regime that finally emerges from this mess will be no friend of the US (see: Afghanistan; Iraq). We have no dog in this fight. In the final analysis, why should we care?
 
2013-05-07 01:41:15 PM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


Caucasian Spring? I think that happened on April 15 in Boston.

/Can't get more Caucasian than two brothers from the Caucasus.
 
2013-05-07 01:45:37 PM

mrshowrules: Canada fought in WWI & WWII.  US later joined in.
Canada went to Afghanistan but not Iraq
Canada fought in Korea but not Vietnam.


Galtiari took the UUUUUUNION Jack...
 
2013-05-07 01:49:13 PM

whidbey: make me some tea: So wait a minute here, Breitbart.com is complaining that Obama is treading very cautiously on the decision to take military action in Syria? Seriously? They still haven't learned the lesson from Bush's disaster, have they?

Disaster? What Disaster? Bush kept this country safe no matter the cost, amirite?


He spared no expense.
 
2013-05-07 01:50:27 PM
For now, we should stay out. But if we have no choice but to go in, let us clean the place but NOT PLAY FARKING DEMOCRACY for them. They'll figure it out. They'd just get mad if their new president was being handheld by us.
 
2013-05-07 01:50:35 PM
Syria is Russia's to deal with. The US has had blood and treasure on the line in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo and others. Pootie wants to be a Super Power, a world player, then this proxy state is his to make his mark. He can kill everyone and be proven a ruthless authoritarian or provide statesmanship and broker compromise. But it's just not the US's job. We don't have the access, the manpower, any clear allies or desired outcome. We need to wish the people well and provide all the humanitarian aid we can through our NATO ally Turkey.  That's all we can and should do.

(of course we are providing all the covert information we can to help Israel prevent the arming of Hezbollah)
 
2013-05-07 01:51:43 PM
So which would you like, Brietbart dudes?  The pseudo-secular totalitarian dictator who's killed tens of thousands of his own folks and potentially has used chemical weapons, or the increasingly Al Qaeda backed fanatics in the rebel army who also may have used chemical weapons?

Funny how we keep getting ourselves into this situation, isn't it?  When it was Egypt, you went with the former and screamed about the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now you want the latter?  And which side were you on Libya again?  I forget.

Do you really have any idea what you actually want?  Or do you just want whatever is going to go the worst for us so you can blame Obama either way?  Nevermind...  that's rhetorical.
 
2013-05-07 01:51:57 PM
Remember, boys and girls:

1) B. Hussein Osama is a rat fink because he spends too much money.
2) B. Hussein Osama is a rat fink because he won't invade Syria or Iran.
 
2013-05-07 01:56:44 PM

Carousel Beast: Rwa2play: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Rwa2play: I'm guessing you were the type that wanted Obama to engage Libya but them criticized him when he actually did it.

Rinse/Repeat much?

And your guess is wrong.

post proof then...or are you going with the "you can look it up yourself" "defense".

You made the accusation, you can provide proof of your own.

/I'm defending him mainly because of the kickass pictures he posts


Yeah, he does do that well.

//But you're being an ass about it, too

Yeah well, I'm just sick and tired about people wailing about Obama nowadays.  It seems that Senate democrats (and I'm using a small d because, frankly, they're spineless) seem to cut and run whenever they got confronted by the Senate Republicans.  The only one that wants to be an adult in Washington is Obama.
 
2013-05-07 01:58:00 PM

Ned Stark: Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.

I don't think Obama's threats were ever worth much. He just can't pull off menacing.


You've not been paying attention I see.
 
2013-05-07 02:03:10 PM

To whoever made the bold comment below:

LasersHurt:
Tyee: LasersHurt: No, because that isn't an answer at all. That's you saying "whatever it is, is wrong, and this unnamed anonymous source also says it's bad."

Sunday's NYT.
And "Whatever it is"...what was it?  Never mind I'm done for now.

You're probably right, you must be right... because Obama is always right.

You know

when Obama is REALLY right, because he'll tell you at the end of his speech that whatever he's advocating is the right thing to do. If he just said that more often, the people would be more assured and happy.

Don't worry folks, Obama is on it. And he's doing the right thing.
 
2013-05-07 02:07:35 PM
Have I missed something?

I thought when Obama initially said that the Assad regime's days were numbered, that Obama meant that as an observation; not as a promise or even hint that the US would effect the outcome in any way.

Or did I err by parsing the normal meaning of those English words?
 
2013-05-07 02:25:25 PM

Lagaidh: Have I missed something?

I thought when Obama initially said that the Assad regime's days were numbered, that Obama meant that as an observation; not as a promise or even hint that the US would effect the outcome in any way.

Or did I err by parsing the normal meaning of those English words?


Yes.
 
2013-05-07 02:29:05 PM
I am ecstatic to have a President that gets his facts straight before diving headlong into a war. It's a rare thing in this country.
 
2013-05-07 02:33:22 PM
Why are you still talking, Andrew? You've been dead for quite some time.

STFU and STAY DEAD, FFS.
 
2013-05-07 02:34:25 PM

Fart_Machine: It Tuesday.  So is Obama a warmongering tyrant who would send drones inside America's borders or an appeaser who apologizes to everyone?  Which talking point are they going with today.


Apparently the derp du jour is "Obama shouldn't make threats without following through".

To the extent that there was any actual threat it was to "change the calculus"; this may be the first instance of math-related right-wing poutrage in American history.
 
2013-05-07 02:34:52 PM

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring.

We had one.

[media.ny1.com image 534x300]


Conservatives poo-poo'd the whole thing as hippie bullshiat.


To be fair, it wasn't all Caucasians.  And yes, it was hippie b.s. marred by violence and vandalism.  Some peace there.
 
2013-05-07 02:36:33 PM

Maud Dib: darwin


LOL.

Stay in the igloo. Good one.

In the real world, when America starts talking about going into the middle east, it's like ringing the dinner bell for the Jihadist world. They hate you. And they have long memories. All you're doing is buying yourself more and more enemies. Eventually, they'll stop screwing around, get their sh*t together and one day you'll wake up and find one of your major cities uninhabitable for 150 years because somebody let off a dirty bomb, or dropped anthrax in your subway system, or poisoned your water supply, or let off a vx nerve agent at a sports gathering and there's 80,000 dead people.

If you don't get it, I won't convince you either way.
 
2013-05-07 02:36:40 PM

mrshowrules: The don't know who used the chemical weapons yet. Do you know something the administration doesn't? If so, you should contact the CIA hotline with your important information.


If we don't know that's a problem as well. It's not like it is an easy secret to keep. A bunch of people fall dead and you don't see a lot of bullet holes, there was chemical weapons. A bunch of bodes covered in their own puke?! Yep, we got one.

The only way to do the right thing (not go to war) and still allow the President to save face (which is hard to do with your foot in this mouth) is to say that the evidence is not there. And let me let you in on a little secret, there is no way the administration is going to say that there were weapons there. 'cause then we would have to do something. And we'll never forget the last time we made that mistake. The world thought they were there, Saddam thought they were there, we had dead bodies showing they were there (at some time) and guess what! They weren't there! And that was the time that we had 14 points on why we invaded and 13 of them were completely true and proven! But no one remembers those they just remember the one that was there. You think President Obama wants that?!

Rwa2play: Yeah, he does do that well.


it's my way of torturing people. Yeah you could put me on Ignore, but you really don't want to.

Rwa2play: Yeah well, I'm just sick and tired about people wailing about Obama nowadays. It seems that Senate democrats (and I'm using a small d because, frankly, they're spineless) seem to cut and run whenever they got confronted by the Senate Republicans. The only one that wants to be an adult in Washington is Obama.


Yeah well about those other people, I dont care. Are you ready to admit you jumped down my throat for something I never did? Than told me to prove my innocence by proving that I never did something?
 
2013-05-07 02:38:20 PM
Must be a slow day at the office. The trolls are out in force.
 
2013-05-07 02:38:41 PM
We should follow standard Republican procedures in such a situation, and invade Iraq.

/And any other enemies of Iran
 
2013-05-07 02:44:10 PM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


I suppose it would be better that bodies pile up than Obama admit a mistake or a misstatement.  Send in the troops!

/Oh wait, would we be fighting on the side that used chemical weapons, or Assad's side?  My what a dilemma!
 
2013-05-07 02:47:33 PM

bdub77: Anti_illuminati: Anti_illuminati: bdub77: It's like trying to decide if you want the Nazis or Al Qaeda to take control of Syria

Al Qaeda. Next question.

Wait. Are we talking new-age Nazis, or a reincarnation of the Third Reich? 'Cause that seriously changes things.

Maybe a better example would be Saddam vs. Al Qaeda. OK he committed genocide on a people too, if a smaller scale.

God there are really no good options here.


Arm both sides and let the bodies pile up?

/also profit
 
2013-05-07 02:54:33 PM

make me some tea: So wait a minute here, Breitbart.com is complaining that Obama is treading very cautiously on the decision to take military action in Syria? Seriously? They still haven't learned the lesson from Bush's disaster, have they?


If you admit that you made a mistake, then you hate America.  And God forbid that you even THINK about learning from those mistakes you didn't make.

/Republican logic
 
2013-05-07 03:06:31 PM
No matter what happens in Syria, or how large a role the US plays in it, Obama is going to get the blame.

- Assad stays in power.  Obama will be blamed for not taking action to protect the innocent people of Syria and letting and Iranian ally stay in power to continue to funnel weapons to Hezbollah.
- Assad gets kicked out.   Obama will be blamed because the Al-Qaeda aligned rebels will install a Sunni government based on Sharia Law, which will turn Syria into a haven for terrorist training camps, and give Al-Qaeda access to Syria's chemical weapons.
 
2013-05-07 03:22:13 PM

mrshowrules: Two16: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe we should just butt out and let this thing play itself out.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 379x316]

Canada fought in WWI & WWII.  US later joined in.
Canada went to Afghanistan but not Iraq
Canada fought in Korea but not Vietnam.

My best advice is to ask Canada what they are going to do.


Cuz Korea was so awesome. So is Afghanistan.
 
2013-05-07 03:37:19 PM

indarwinsshadow:

If you don't get it, I won't convince you either way.

Meanwhile, you just go on ahead and burn your own damn cities down, brother.



www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-05-07 03:54:02 PM

I_C_Weener: You know what?  Arab springs are messy.  Can we have a Caucasian Spring...maybe Germanic people's Spring.  Those are clean and simple.  Flowers and stuff.


laurarosbrow.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-07 04:06:23 PM

indarwinsshadow: Maud Dib: darwin

LOL.

Stay in the igloo. Good one.

In the real world, when America starts talking about going into the middle east, it's like ringing the dinner bell for the Jihadist world. They hate you. And they have long memories. All you're doing is buying yourself more and more enemies. Eventually, they'll stop screwing around, get their sh*t together and one day you'll wake up and find one of your major cities uninhabitable for 150 years because somebody let off a dirty bomb, or dropped anthrax in your subway system, or poisoned your water supply, or let off a vx nerve agent at a sports gathering and there's 80,000 dead people.

If you don't get it, I won't convince you either way.


They'd be better off just slitting their own throats. I'm no war monger and sure wish we'd find something else to do with all that money but holy crap Allah would have his hands full with all the muslim souls after that. The middle east would be destroyed.
 
2013-05-07 04:12:57 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: mrshowrules: The don't know who used the chemical weapons yet. Do you know something the administration doesn't? If so, you should contact the CIA hotline with your important information.

If we don't know that's a problem as well. It's not like it is an easy secret to keep. A bunch of people fall dead and you don't see a lot of bullet holes, there was chemical weapons. A bunch of bodes covered in their own puke?! Yep, we got one.

The only way to do the right thing (not go to war) and still allow the President to save face (which is hard to do with your foot in this mouth) is to say that the evidence is not there. And let me let you in on a little secret, there is no way the administration is going to say that there were weapons there. 'cause then we would have to do something. And we'll never forget the last time we made that mistake. The world thought they were there, Saddam thought they were there, we had dead bodies showing they were there (at some time) and guess what! They weren't there! And that was the time that we had 14 points on why we invaded and 13 of them were completely true and proven! But no one remembers those they just remember the one that was there. You think President Obama wants that?!


Whether or not Assad's government crossed a red line is not clear.  Iraq is just proof how it is very easy to get things like this wrong.  Obama (unlike the previous administration) is an adult.  He will act on correct information, not speculation.
 
m00
2013-05-07 04:18:39 PM
Well, I thought we should be involved even before the chemical weapons. Fundamentalist factions are getting external money so that when the Assad regime is overthrown, Syria will be another Islamist Dictatorship that "plays ball" with the terrorist organizations in the region and has an anti-western stance. We need to find out who the secular factions are, and help them keep things balanced. Support them with food, medical supplies, logistics, intelligence, and so forth... but keep enough of a distance that they aren't seen as "US puppets." Probably go through a close regional ally, such as Turkey or Jordan.

The chemical weapons are a game-changer. We can't afford a war, but we can afford airstrikes on the Syrian government's chemical weapons plants. We just need to make it clear to the resistance that we'll take out high-value targets, but they have to be the boots on the ground (and they are perfectly willing to do so).

Just my 2c.
 
2013-05-07 04:29:08 PM

m00: We need to find out who the secular factions are, and help them keep things balanced. Support them with food, medical supplies, logistics, intelligence, and so forth... but keep enough of a distance that they aren't seen as "US puppets." Probably go through a close regional ally, such as Turkey or Jordan.


Those are two ENORMOUS assumptions:
1. That there is a significant secular faction. If there are, they're likely either split between the two sides or they're trying to get the fark out of Syria entirely. There is no possible endgame which leaves secular leadership in charge, unless we expand the timeline to centuries-long or an outside country (like France, the UK, the US, Denmark...) forces it - which has its own set of problems.
2. That Turkey/Jordan want secular leadership in charge in Syria. If you hadn't noticed, Turkey is on a quick march back to the pre-Attaturk days and Jordan never really left.

I'd also love it if a secular uniter rose to power in Syria after the civil war's over, but I'd also like a bunch of improbable things to happen (blowjobs from celebrities, endless steak dinners, certain movies to be real).
 
2013-05-07 04:29:21 PM

m00: Well, I thought we should be involved even before the chemical weapons. Fundamentalist factions are getting external money so that when the Assad regime is overthrown, Syria will be another Islamist Dictatorship that "plays ball" with the terrorist organizations in the region and has an anti-western stance. We need to find out who the secular factions are, and help them keep things balanced. Support them with food, medical supplies, logistics, intelligence, and so forth... but keep enough of a distance that they aren't seen as "US puppets." Probably go through a close regional ally, such as Turkey or Jordan.

The chemical weapons are a game-changer. We can't afford a war, but we can afford airstrikes on the Syrian government's chemical weapons plants. We just need to make it clear to the resistance that we'll take out high-value targets, but they have to be the boots on the ground (and they are perfectly willing to do so).

Just my 2c.


Assad doesn't play ball with terrorist organizations or have an anti-western stance?
 
2013-05-07 04:29:27 PM

m00: Well, I thought we should be involved even before the chemical weapons. Fundamentalist factions are getting external money so that when the Assad regime is overthrown, Syria will be another Islamist Dictatorship that "plays ball" with the terrorist organizations in the region and has an anti-western stance. We need to find out who the secular factions are, and help them keep things balanced. Support them with food, medical supplies, logistics, intelligence, and so forth... but keep enough of a distance that they aren't seen as "US puppets." Probably go through a close regional ally, such as Turkey or Jordan.

The chemical weapons are a game-changer. We can't afford a war, but we can afford airstrikes on the Syrian government's chemical weapons plants. We just need to make it clear to the resistance that we'll take out high-value targets, but they have to be the boots on the ground (and they are perfectly willing to do so).

Just my 2c.


How did supporting secular leaders historically help the US in Iraq and Iran?
 
2013-05-07 04:32:03 PM
Breitbart is dead. Pity that Fark didn't get the damned memo.
 
2013-05-07 04:37:21 PM

mrshowrules: Whether or not Assad's government crossed a red line is not clear. Iraq is just proof how it is very easy to get things like this wrong. Obama (unlike the previous administration) is an adult.


The fact he popped off like this and got painted into this corner kind of disproves the whole adult thing.

mrshowrules: He will act on correct information, not speculation.


Like every known intelligence agency in the world (plus the dictator in question) telling him it is fact? so, just like last time. Oh fun.

Please lets not invade.
 
2013-05-07 04:38:01 PM

Kibbler: Think we need to go into Syria?  Grab a rifle, strap on a parachute and go.  Or else STFU.


We need ground troops to do what Obama said he would?
 
2013-05-07 04:41:25 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: mrshowrules: Whether or not Assad's government crossed a red line is not clear. Iraq is just proof how it is very easy to get things like this wrong. Obama (unlike the previous administration) is an adult.

The fact he popped off like this and got painted into this corner kind of disproves the whole adult thing.


"Popped off" by making a vague statement which morons are judging him for not "following through" on, even though that is meaningless? Is that what you mean there?
 
m00
2013-05-07 04:41:27 PM

indarwinsshadow: In the real world, when America starts talking about going into the middle east, it's like ringing the dinner bell for the Jihadist world. They hate you. And they have long memories. All you're doing is buying yourself more and more enemies. Eventually, they'll stop screwing around, get their sh*t together and one day you'll wake up and find one of your major cities uninhabitable for 150 years because somebody let off a dirty bomb, or dropped anthrax in your subway system, or poisoned your water supply, or let off a vx nerve agent at a sports gathering and there's 80,000 dead people.


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, the Jihadist world also murdered Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands for exercising his free speech. They are trying to bomb countries that have nothing to do with the "global war on terror." You know, 10 years ago I used to want to punch people who said "they hate us for our freedoms." We've been screwing up their lives since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But I don't think that's why they hate us.

I think they hate us because the wealthy elite Arabs are using a combination of religion and anti-western rhetoric to rile up the masses and distract from the horrible political and economic oppression being perpetrated by those leaders. The life of your average citizen in a middle eastern country is really shiatty and uncertain -- besides starvation and being overworked, your government could kidnap you in the middle of the night and torture you to death because of some comment you made on a blog post. It doesn't matter if Assad is in power, or the Islamist government that will probably succeed him. It's about the elite class vs the underclass. The Arab masses hate us because that is the propaganda necessary to keep the status quo, and the continued looting of what should be the wealthiest region in the world by the local tribal masters.

It's similar to what the political leaders in the USA do in terms of overall strategy. Except whereas the Arab elite instills religious hatred and violence against westerners so they can loot/oppress their home nations, the American elite instills political hatred against "the other party" and a phony concept of stuff-equals-happiness to distract us while we get looted by bankers, and "too big to fail" corporations that spend bailout/tax-break/grant money to lobby government and write legislation that increases their profits at the expense of the rest of us.
 
m00
2013-05-07 04:50:24 PM

mrshowrules: How did supporting secular leaders historically help the US in Iraq and Iran?


In Iran, we overthrew their democratically elected secular leader (Mohammad Mosaddegh) and reinstalled the Shah, because Mosaddegh wanted to nationalize BP Oil. The second Shah was basically like Saddam... we allowed him to loot and oppress his country, as long as we got free oil out of the bargain.

In Iraq, Saddam was the secular leader we supported until a bunch of Saudi and Yemeni hijackers trained in Afghanistan caused us to invade Iraq for some reason.
 
2013-05-07 04:50:45 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The fact he popped off like this


He said it would "change the calculus"! Has he no sense of decency? At long last, has he no sense of decency?

I didn't get a "harrumph" out of that guy.
 
2013-05-07 04:53:07 PM

LasersHurt: "Popped off" by making a vague statement which morons are judging him for not "following through" on, even though that is meaningless? Is that what you mean there?


Yeah. If it was meaningless then he should have kept his trap shut. Now the enemy has footing they can use to make our President look weak. You don't talk about lines of blood (unless you think he was talking about beet juice) in the sand and then dont have follow though. My point all long is I wish he hadn't said it. He farked up, he farked up large.

This thread started with "no he didnt say anything about war" to "well he didn't give a time frame" to now "we dont have absolute proof of chemical weapons".

Wouldn't have been better, easier and more truthful to just say "Yeah he farked up by saying that"?
 
2013-05-07 04:54:24 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't talk about lines of blood (unless you think he was talking about beet juice)


Oh I see, you're a crazy person.
 
2013-05-07 04:55:10 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now the enemy has footing they can use to make our President look


footage. make that footage
 
2013-05-07 04:57:47 PM

LasersHurt: Oh I see, you're a crazy person.


you should read the whole thread. We actually had people here that thought President Obama did not mean war. If you have a background it's actually a very witty and intelligent line. If you dont think so then you're not smart enough to understand the brilliance
 
2013-05-07 04:59:25 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LasersHurt: Oh I see, you're a crazy person.

you should read the whole thread. We actually had people here that thought President Obama did not mean war. If you have a background it's actually a very witty and intelligent line. If you dont think so then you're not smart enough to understand the brilliance


He said it would "change our calculus."

And honestly, seriously, person to person here - are you farking with me? I mean are you pretending to believe this? I feel like you are, and don't actually think this.
 
2013-05-07 04:59:26 PM
Let's be honest.  Does anyone here in America really care about what goes on in Syria?
 
2013-05-07 05:06:35 PM

LasersHurt: And honestly, seriously, person to person here - are you farking with me? I mean are you pretending to believe this? I feel like you are, and don't actually think this.


I going to boil it down. Cause I'm invested way too much time into this thread already.

1) yes I think he was threatening Assad with this statement.
2) yes I think it was a foolish thing to do.
3) yes I think that anyone who wants to quibble about if the President threatened Assad is silly

If you want to argue any of these points, don't. I've already covered every point twice, just read the 300+ post above this one.
 
2013-05-07 05:07:55 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If you want to argue any of these points, don't. I've already covered every point twice, just read the 300+ post above this one.


Sure, okay. "I am correct, this is the only possible interpretation, and I will not even consider discussing otherwise. Now onto the important business of judging the president for what I've invented that he super-cereally-meant."
 
2013-05-07 05:19:12 PM

JDAT: Let's be honest.  Does anyone here in America really care about what goes on in Syria?


It's Way Over There. We pay Israel to handle this shiat, let them handle it.
 
2013-05-07 05:21:39 PM
Good thing we're still too broke to go buy another war! Maybe in 2024 the R's will inherit another budget surplus and go on another rampage or two.
 
2013-05-07 05:36:41 PM

LasersHurt: and I will not even consider discussing otherwise.


6 and a half hours of debate. I think it's been vetted enough.

LasersHurt: what I've invented that he super-cereally-meant.


control + f "target" for counter argument. Strangely enough it's the beet juice argument.
 
2013-05-07 05:42:52 PM

SithLord: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring.

We had one.

[media.ny1.com image 534x300]


Conservatives poo-poo'd the whole thing as hippie bullshiat.

To be fair, it wasn't all Caucasians.  And yes, it was hippie b.s. marred by violence and vandalism.  Some peace there.


This is the part where you post the picture of that one guy shiatting on a police car and pretend it was representative of the larger movement, right?
 
2013-05-07 06:08:55 PM
img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-07 06:14:36 PM
Funny how it's always the Democrats who get bullied for not shooting off the warworks, and yet they've kept this country out of war the last 3 Democratic stints in office.

And yet, every time after 1980 it's some Republican talking shiat and initiating conflicts.
 
2013-05-07 06:40:23 PM

indarwinsshadow: Lots of blood thirsty farkers these days. It's amazing how Americans dig themselves out of one war, only to want to plunk themselves down into the middle of another one.


Hey, just because I'm a blood thirsty farker doesn't mean I want the US to plunk itself down in the middle of every war.  We're lucky, this time the heathens are slaughtering each other just find without our help.
 
2013-05-07 07:13:24 PM
"why have-military if we are not going to use it?" Madeline Albright arguing for intervention in the Balkans
 
2013-05-07 08:11:47 PM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

That's why you never make threats that you're not ready to back them up with actions when the time comes. You end up looking like a major ass and then your later threats are worth nothing.


I'm gonna get you sucka.

/see what I did there?
 
2013-05-07 08:26:15 PM

m00: We need to find out who the secular factions are,


...we tried that in the '80s. Led to America getting into two wars against the "secular faction".
 
2013-05-07 09:59:43 PM
mrshowrules
You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.
That's like saying Christians/Nazis.
-----------------------------------------------------------


It's 2013 now, not 1938. Ismalists/Al Qaeda works just fine.
 
2013-05-07 10:07:51 PM
We hate the Soviet Union, so we arm the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan to kick them out.  But in Iran, we prop up the dictator to avoid it falling into the hands of fundamentalist rebels.  The dictator loses to the Islamists, who hate us for propping up the dictator.  The fundamentalists in Afghanistan turn into the Taliban.  In order to combat the fundamentalists in Iran we arm and support Saddam Hussein, until he decides to take that support and invade Kuwait, in which case we turn on him and buddy up with Saudi Arabia.  Which pisses off the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, which spawns Bin Laden, who goes to Afghanistan and we get 9/11.  And then we decide to take out both our former allies the Taliban and Saddam, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into what appear to increasingly be allies of Iran.  Who are now both allies of Syria, and... surprise... what was the former Soviet Union.  But sure, let's intervene and either invade or arm the fundamentalist rebels there, too.  I'm sure it'll work out for the best, this time.
 
2013-05-07 10:44:31 PM

jaerik: We hate the Soviet Union, so we arm the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan to kick them out.  But in Iran, we prop up the dictator to avoid it falling into the hands of fundamentalist rebels.  The dictator loses to the Islamists, who hate us for propping up the dictator.  The fundamentalists in Afghanistan turn into the Taliban.  In order to combat the fundamentalists in Iran we arm and support Saddam Hussein, until he decides to take that support and invade Kuwait, in which case we turn on him and buddy up with Saudi Arabia.  Which pisses off the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, which spawns Bin Laden, who goes to Afghanistan and we get 9/11.  And then we decide to take out both our former allies the Taliban and Saddam, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into what appear to increasingly be allies of Iran.  Who are now both allies of Syria, and... surprise... what was the former Soviet Union.  But sure, let's intervene and either invade or arm the fundamentalist rebels there, too.  I'm sure it'll work out for the best, this time.


Well said.
 
2013-05-08 12:24:41 AM

Frederick: jaerik: We hate the Soviet Union, so we arm the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan to kick them out.  But in Iran, we prop up the dictator to avoid it falling into the hands of fundamentalist rebels.  The dictator loses to the Islamists, who hate us for propping up the dictator.  The fundamentalists in Afghanistan turn into the Taliban.  In order to combat the fundamentalists in Iran we arm and support Saddam Hussein, until he decides to take that support and invade Kuwait, in which case we turn on him and buddy up with Saudi Arabia.  Which pisses off the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, which spawns Bin Laden, who goes to Afghanistan and we get 9/11.  And then we decide to take out both our former allies the Taliban and Saddam, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into what appear to increasingly be allies of Iran.  Who are now both allies of Syria, and... surprise... what was the former Soviet Union.  But sure, let's intervene and either invade or arm the fundamentalist rebels there, too.  I'm sure it'll work out for the best, this time.

Well said.


Sounds like a pretty good reason to glass parking lot most of the Middle East.  We have been trying to pull them out of the tenth century for 50 years now, they simply do not want to join us in the 21st century, they would rather eliminate us.

I would  be just fine leaving them alone if they would leave us alone, but I don't think they would go for it.
 
Displayed 328 of 328 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report