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  
•       •       •

3220 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 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
 
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