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  
•       •       •

3219 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 11:39:51 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"?
 
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