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  
•       •       •

3222 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 May 2013 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 328 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report