If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 04:37:21 PM

mrshowrules: Whether or not Assad's government crossed a red line is not clear. Iraq is just proof how it is very easy to get things like this wrong. Obama (unlike the previous administration) is an adult.


The fact he popped off like this and got painted into this corner kind of disproves the whole adult thing.

mrshowrules: He will act on correct information, not speculation.


Like every known intelligence agency in the world (plus the dictator in question) telling him it is fact? so, just like last time. Oh fun.

Please lets not invade.
 
2013-05-07 04:38:01 PM

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


We need ground troops to do what Obama said he would?
 
2013-05-07 04:41:25 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: mrshowrules: Whether or not Assad's government crossed a red line is not clear. Iraq is just proof how it is very easy to get things like this wrong. Obama (unlike the previous administration) is an adult.

The fact he popped off like this and got painted into this corner kind of disproves the whole adult thing.


"Popped off" by making a vague statement which morons are judging him for not "following through" on, even though that is meaningless? Is that what you mean there?
 
m00
2013-05-07 04:41:27 PM

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


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, the Jihadist world also murdered Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands for exercising his free speech. They are trying to bomb countries that have nothing to do with the "global war on terror." You know, 10 years ago I used to want to punch people who said "they hate us for our freedoms." We've been screwing up their lives since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But I don't think that's why they hate us.

I think they hate us because the wealthy elite Arabs are using a combination of religion and anti-western rhetoric to rile up the masses and distract from the horrible political and economic oppression being perpetrated by those leaders. The life of your average citizen in a middle eastern country is really shiatty and uncertain -- besides starvation and being overworked, your government could kidnap you in the middle of the night and torture you to death because of some comment you made on a blog post. It doesn't matter if Assad is in power, or the Islamist government that will probably succeed him. It's about the elite class vs the underclass. The Arab masses hate us because that is the propaganda necessary to keep the status quo, and the continued looting of what should be the wealthiest region in the world by the local tribal masters.

It's similar to what the political leaders in the USA do in terms of overall strategy. Except whereas the Arab elite instills religious hatred and violence against westerners so they can loot/oppress their home nations, the American elite instills political hatred against "the other party" and a phony concept of stuff-equals-happiness to distract us while we get looted by bankers, and "too big to fail" corporations that spend bailout/tax-break/grant money to lobby government and write legislation that increases their profits at the expense of the rest of us.
 
m00
2013-05-07 04:50:24 PM

mrshowrules: How did supporting secular leaders historically help the US in Iraq and Iran?


In Iran, we overthrew their democratically elected secular leader (Mohammad Mosaddegh) and reinstalled the Shah, because Mosaddegh wanted to nationalize BP Oil. The second Shah was basically like Saddam... we allowed him to loot and oppress his country, as long as we got free oil out of the bargain.

In Iraq, Saddam was the secular leader we supported until a bunch of Saudi and Yemeni hijackers trained in Afghanistan caused us to invade Iraq for some reason.
 
2013-05-07 04:50:45 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The fact he popped off like this


He said it would "change the calculus"! Has he no sense of decency? At long last, has he no sense of decency?

I didn't get a "harrumph" out of that guy.
 
2013-05-07 04:53:07 PM

LasersHurt: "Popped off" by making a vague statement which morons are judging him for not "following through" on, even though that is meaningless? Is that what you mean there?


Yeah. If it was meaningless then he should have kept his trap shut. Now the enemy has footing they can use to make our President look weak. You don't talk about lines of blood (unless you think he was talking about beet juice) in the sand and then dont have follow though. My point all long is I wish he hadn't said it. He farked up, he farked up large.

This thread started with "no he didnt say anything about war" to "well he didn't give a time frame" to now "we dont have absolute proof of chemical weapons".

Wouldn't have been better, easier and more truthful to just say "Yeah he farked up by saying that"?
 
2013-05-07 04:54:24 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't talk about lines of blood (unless you think he was talking about beet juice)


Oh I see, you're a crazy person.
 
2013-05-07 04:55:10 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now the enemy has footing they can use to make our President look


footage. make that footage
 
2013-05-07 04:57:47 PM

LasersHurt: Oh I see, you're a crazy person.


you should read the whole thread. We actually had people here that thought President Obama did not mean war. If you have a background it's actually a very witty and intelligent line. If you dont think so then you're not smart enough to understand the brilliance
 
2013-05-07 04:59:25 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: LasersHurt: Oh I see, you're a crazy person.

you should read the whole thread. We actually had people here that thought President Obama did not mean war. If you have a background it's actually a very witty and intelligent line. If you dont think so then you're not smart enough to understand the brilliance


He said it would "change our calculus."

And honestly, seriously, person to person here - are you farking with me? I mean are you pretending to believe this? I feel like you are, and don't actually think this.
 
2013-05-07 04:59:26 PM
Let's be honest.  Does anyone here in America really care about what goes on in Syria?
 
2013-05-07 05:06:35 PM

LasersHurt: And honestly, seriously, person to person here - are you farking with me? I mean are you pretending to believe this? I feel like you are, and don't actually think this.


I going to boil it down. Cause I'm invested way too much time into this thread already.

1) yes I think he was threatening Assad with this statement.
2) yes I think it was a foolish thing to do.
3) yes I think that anyone who wants to quibble about if the President threatened Assad is silly

If you want to argue any of these points, don't. I've already covered every point twice, just read the 300+ post above this one.
 
2013-05-07 05:07:55 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If you want to argue any of these points, don't. I've already covered every point twice, just read the 300+ post above this one.


Sure, okay. "I am correct, this is the only possible interpretation, and I will not even consider discussing otherwise. Now onto the important business of judging the president for what I've invented that he super-cereally-meant."
 
2013-05-07 05:19:12 PM

JDAT: Let's be honest.  Does anyone here in America really care about what goes on in Syria?


It's Way Over There. We pay Israel to handle this shiat, let them handle it.
 
2013-05-07 05:21:39 PM
Good thing we're still too broke to go buy another war! Maybe in 2024 the R's will inherit another budget surplus and go on another rampage or two.
 
2013-05-07 05:36:41 PM

LasersHurt: and I will not even consider discussing otherwise.


6 and a half hours of debate. I think it's been vetted enough.

LasersHurt: what I've invented that he super-cereally-meant.


control + f "target" for counter argument. Strangely enough it's the beet juice argument.
 
2013-05-07 05:42:52 PM

SithLord: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring.

We had one.

[media.ny1.com image 534x300]


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

To be fair, it wasn't all Caucasians.  And yes, it was hippie b.s. marred by violence and vandalism.  Some peace there.


This is the part where you post the picture of that one guy shiatting on a police car and pretend it was representative of the larger movement, right?
 
2013-05-07 06:08:55 PM
img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-07 06:14:36 PM
Funny how it's always the Democrats who get bullied for not shooting off the warworks, and yet they've kept this country out of war the last 3 Democratic stints in office.

And yet, every time after 1980 it's some Republican talking shiat and initiating conflicts.
 
2013-05-07 06:40:23 PM

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


Hey, just because I'm a blood thirsty farker doesn't mean I want the US to plunk itself down in the middle of every war.  We're lucky, this time the heathens are slaughtering each other just find without our help.
 
2013-05-07 07:13:24 PM
"why have-military if we are not going to use it?" Madeline Albright arguing for intervention in the Balkans
 
2013-05-07 08:11:47 PM

Tatsuma: Ouch.

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


I'm gonna get you sucka.

/see what I did there?
 
2013-05-07 08:26:15 PM

m00: We need to find out who the secular factions are,


...we tried that in the '80s. Led to America getting into two wars against the "secular faction".
 
2013-05-07 09:59:43 PM
mrshowrules
You realize you just used a slashie between a world religion and a terrorist organization.
That's like saying Christians/Nazis.
-----------------------------------------------------------


It's 2013 now, not 1938. Ismalists/Al Qaeda works just fine.
 
2013-05-07 10:07:51 PM
We hate the Soviet Union, so we arm the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan to kick them out.  But in Iran, we prop up the dictator to avoid it falling into the hands of fundamentalist rebels.  The dictator loses to the Islamists, who hate us for propping up the dictator.  The fundamentalists in Afghanistan turn into the Taliban.  In order to combat the fundamentalists in Iran we arm and support Saddam Hussein, until he decides to take that support and invade Kuwait, in which case we turn on him and buddy up with Saudi Arabia.  Which pisses off the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, which spawns Bin Laden, who goes to Afghanistan and we get 9/11.  And then we decide to take out both our former allies the Taliban and Saddam, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into what appear to increasingly be allies of Iran.  Who are now both allies of Syria, and... surprise... what was the former Soviet Union.  But sure, let's intervene and either invade or arm the fundamentalist rebels there, too.  I'm sure it'll work out for the best, this time.
 
2013-05-07 10:44:31 PM

jaerik: We hate the Soviet Union, so we arm the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan to kick them out.  But in Iran, we prop up the dictator to avoid it falling into the hands of fundamentalist rebels.  The dictator loses to the Islamists, who hate us for propping up the dictator.  The fundamentalists in Afghanistan turn into the Taliban.  In order to combat the fundamentalists in Iran we arm and support Saddam Hussein, until he decides to take that support and invade Kuwait, in which case we turn on him and buddy up with Saudi Arabia.  Which pisses off the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, which spawns Bin Laden, who goes to Afghanistan and we get 9/11.  And then we decide to take out both our former allies the Taliban and Saddam, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into what appear to increasingly be allies of Iran.  Who are now both allies of Syria, and... surprise... what was the former Soviet Union.  But sure, let's intervene and either invade or arm the fundamentalist rebels there, too.  I'm sure it'll work out for the best, this time.


Well said.
 
2013-05-08 12:24:41 AM

Frederick: jaerik: We hate the Soviet Union, so we arm the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan to kick them out.  But in Iran, we prop up the dictator to avoid it falling into the hands of fundamentalist rebels.  The dictator loses to the Islamists, who hate us for propping up the dictator.  The fundamentalists in Afghanistan turn into the Taliban.  In order to combat the fundamentalists in Iran we arm and support Saddam Hussein, until he decides to take that support and invade Kuwait, in which case we turn on him and buddy up with Saudi Arabia.  Which pisses off the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, which spawns Bin Laden, who goes to Afghanistan and we get 9/11.  And then we decide to take out both our former allies the Taliban and Saddam, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into what appear to increasingly be allies of Iran.  Who are now both allies of Syria, and... surprise... what was the former Soviet Union.  But sure, let's intervene and either invade or arm the fundamentalist rebels there, too.  I'm sure it'll work out for the best, this time.

Well said.


Sounds like a pretty good reason to glass parking lot most of the Middle East.  We have been trying to pull them out of the tenth century for 50 years now, they simply do not want to join us in the 21st century, they would rather eliminate us.

I would  be just fine leaving them alone if they would leave us alone, but I don't think they would go for it.
 
Displayed 28 of 328 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report