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 56
    More: Followup, UHHH  
•       •       •

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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-07 11:03:51 AM
5 votes:
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.
2013-05-07 11:08:33 AM
3 votes:
Well, in Republicanland, "6 days; 6 weeks" means "close to 9 full years", so Obama's still got 7+ years to stay this particular course.
2013-05-07 12:13:50 PM
2 votes:

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 12:08:07 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-05-07 12:02:46 PM
2 votes:

I_C_Weener: Can we have a Caucasian Spring.


We had one.

media.ny1.com


Conservatives poo-poo'd the whole thing as hippie bullshiat.
2013-05-07 11:20:43 AM
2 votes:

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.


I don't think the "rightwingnutters" want to go into Syria at all.  They consider all sides in that conflict to be the bad guys and are more worried that support will be given to somebody at sometime by Obama and that means helping the bad guys.  As for Obama, they do want him to look bad but this time, again, its all on him.  Obama opened his mouth and inserted his own foot, pointing it out isn't making him look bad, he does because of himself, pointing it out just helps you to see it more easily.
2013-05-07 11:07:59 AM
2 votes:
Think we need to go into Syria?  Grab a rifle, strap on a parachute and go.  Or else STFU.
2013-05-07 06:08:55 PM
1 votes:
img196.imageshack.us
2013-05-07 12:55:59 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:55 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: Different form Christian Conservatism how?


Not terribly different from conservatives who advocate more laws based on the Bible.
2013-05-07 12:30:54 PM
1 votes:
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 12:28:55 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:18:36 PM
1 votes:

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 12:17:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:15:43 PM
1 votes:

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 12:13:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:13:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:38 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-07 12:06:01 PM
1 votes:

Car_Ramrod: Obama says "using chem weapons is crossing a red line and won't be tolerated". We get conflicting reports of possible use of chem weapons. Obama doesn't bomb them immediately. Obama is a weakling offering empty threats.

There, I think I've summarized things pretty well.


Meanwhile, Israel violates international law (again) with no repercussions.
2013-05-07 12:02:38 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: 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"?


Obama drew a 'Red Line' when the reality is he will do nothing until the UN and or the majority of the area says OK.  Don't act tough if you are not, it just makes you look foolish.

\I personally don't care to see us get involved
2013-05-07 12:00:50 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: 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".


"Days are numbered" is an absolute observation; there's no real implication of the power to effect a remedy.  I can say "President Obama's days are numbered"; there can be a latent hostility to the observation, but no threat.  Fair enough.

It's the "red line" business that is causing Obama grief.  He wanted to sound genuinely threatening while remaining vague; unfortunately a line is a line, and when it gets crossed, it's generally verifiable.  The result clause of the threat wasn't explicitly violent, but the "change my calculus" implied intervention, given that the "calculus" up to this point has consisted largely of non-intervention.

Rather than distancing himself from the remark, Obama should articulate how the "calculus" will change; will he defer to UN leadership on the issue, will he provide lethal resource assistance to the rebels, what will he do differently once the use or transfer of chemical weapons by the regime is confirmed?
2013-05-07 11:58:16 AM
1 votes:
Is there anyone else besides me and the Russians who are hoping Assad defeats the Islamists/ Al Qaeda?
2013-05-07 11:57:34 AM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: 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.


The lines seemed to imply a sort of Libya-style intervention. Over and over again, by multiple officials in this administration, including Obama himself, they mentioned that they could not tolerate certain things, red lines, game changers, etc... You can't throw around those words if effectively you're not going to do anything about them.

I don't know personally what should be done, this seems to be a hornet's nest right now where every decision is a bad decision.
2013-05-07 11:57:06 AM
1 votes:

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

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-05-07 11:54:39 AM
1 votes:

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 11:52:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:44:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:42:30 AM
1 votes:

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 11:41:19 AM
1 votes:

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 11:32:35 AM
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: The problem with Syria is that there are no good guys. I will not support Assad or Al Qaeda. If any of the groups in that country were advocating a secular democracy, we might have someone to rally behind. But all I can say is to let the scumbags kill each other, and it's a shame that some non-combatants will continue to be killed in the process.


Considering the fact that the secular rebel forces have all disappeared from the scene and have been replaced by jihadists from outside or Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda), the fact is that the 'best' thing for regional stability in the end is probably for Assad to stay in power, and not these guys to take over.

And, well, that's a horrible thing to even consider.
2013-05-07 11:31:30 AM
1 votes:
Why does this feel like whoever wins in Syria, the Syrian people lose?
2013-05-07 11:30:04 AM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?


Nowhere in my post did I say that America should get involved. I said 'don't threaten if you're not going to back up what you're saying' and you came at me insulting me about something I never said.
2013-05-07 11:27:55 AM
1 votes:

Tatsuma: LasersHurt: You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.

Thank you for countering my opinion with facts.


What facts? It's obviously a bad idea to get militarily involved. It's obvious that this situation is different than other situations in near history.

What "facts" do you need to show it's a shiatty idea to get into another military conflict in the Middle East?

Seriously, dude. You're clearly a hawk who supports military action, I disagree because of the myriad of evidence that suggests it's a shiatty idea. Why should I need to provide "facts" to convince you of reality?
2013-05-07 11:26:49 AM
1 votes:

Tatsuma: We've known about Assad's (Saddam's) chemical weapons for decades now.


Now where have we heard that before?
2013-05-07 11:25:33 AM
1 votes:
Also I'm sure conservatives will be for it before they are against it.  Just like in Libya.
2013-05-07 11:25:23 AM
1 votes:

WhoGAS: I don't think they knew anything about the chemical weapon rumors 600 days ago. I think he's just saying that "some" kind of action should have been taken such as direct diplomacy, small support...


We've known about Assad's chemical weapons for decades now.

Granny_Panties: It doesn't matter. Tatsuma just loves seeing non-Jewish people getting killed. He isn't picky.


Hey, someone's stupid alt.

LasersHurt: You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.


Thank you for countering my opinion with facts.

Rwa2play: That's why Quadaffi's still in Libya? Oh wait...


Sarkozy had more to do with that than Obama ever had.
2013-05-07 11:23:25 AM
1 votes:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Infernalist: We're not going into Syria unless we get the entire region behind us in doing it.

It'll be a carbon copy of how we dealt with Libya. Or it won't happen at all.

You mean the action that destabilized the region, left a fragmented country, and raised support for Islamic extremism that's now being used to justify bombings in other North African countries? That dealing with Libya?

I'm so glad we're going to get a repeat of that.


So am I.  It was cheap, no Americans died, we were in and out in weeks and the Libyan people love us for it.

I can't wait to do it again.

The 'best' part?  The GOP has to sit there and simmer in their hatred of a Democratic President that knows how to wage war better than they can.
2013-05-07 11:21:46 AM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Why, again, do we care about any of this?


It makes an easy launching point against the administration.

I mean, if you don't actually think about it at all.
2013-05-07 11:18:58 AM
1 votes:
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.

Deal with it, chickenhawks.
2013-05-07 11:16:42 AM
1 votes:

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.


What threat did Obama make?
2013-05-07 11:16:17 AM
1 votes:
could we warn in the headline that the link points to an autoplay video?

/breitbart should have been warning enough
2013-05-07 11:15:28 AM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I set my alarm-clock to repeat "Andrew Breitbart is dead" so I always wake up to good news.


You must lead a truly fascinating life after that alarm goes off.
2013-05-07 11:13:54 AM
1 votes:

Ned Stark: Tatsuma: Ouch.

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

I don't think Obama's threats were ever worth much. He just can't pull off menacing.


I know, right? Just ask bin Laden and Gadhafi. Obama is a total pussy.
2013-05-07 11:13:40 AM
1 votes:

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.


You're an insufferable war hawk and your opinions are entirely invalid.

/sorry, had to get that out.
2013-05-07 11:11:56 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Ouch.

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

Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?


It doesn't matter. Tatsuma just loves seeing non-Jewish people getting killed. He isn't picky.
2013-05-07 11:09:24 AM
1 votes:

stevenboof: I believe yesterday's thought was to kill everybody.


www.angryflower.com
2013-05-07 11:08:36 AM
1 votes:
look the important thing is that we need to kill someone, somewhere

wait I mean DRONES BAD BLOODTHIRSTY OBAMA
2013-05-07 11:07:29 AM
1 votes:
Obama's so soft. I'll bet all he does is drone on about the problem.
2013-05-07 11:05:57 AM
1 votes:
I set my alarm-clock to repeat "Andrew Breitbart is dead" so I always wake up to good news.
2013-05-07 11:05:28 AM
1 votes:

God-is-a-Taco: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x215]


Oh, and I'm not comparing Obama to Bush in a negative light here.
Rushing into wars is bad.
2013-05-07 11:02:43 AM
1 votes:

Tatsuma: Ouch.

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


Are you saying we should kill the rebels for using chemical weapons?
2013-05-07 11:02:10 AM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-05-07 11:01:35 AM
1 votes:
Maybe we should just butt out and let this thing play itself out.
2013-05-07 11:01:06 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-05-07 11:00:29 AM
1 votes:
Assad still has what? 10 maybe 13 UN resolutions before the strongly worded letter?
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report