Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, UHHH  
•       •       •

3233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 May 2013 at 10:59 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 328 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report