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.

(Daily Mail)   Russia sends anti-ship missiles to Syria. The rebels have ships now? Ooooh, it's for the American and NATO navies that will probably intervene at some point. Way to be a dick, Putin   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Scary, anti-ship missile, Russia, Bashar, Aleppo, Syrian refugees, Erdogan, Foreign Secretary, peaceful protest  
•       •       •

7029 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2013 at 10:13 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-17 08:55:34 AM  
Who needs ships really when we have drones we can launch from Israel?
 
2013-05-17 09:07:25 AM  
In fairness, Syria really is essentially a Russian issue. And have been for a long while. NATO isn't going into Syria without Russia's support. Plain and simple. Were Syria NOT under the Russian sphere of influence, things would have been put into place some time ago, but folks really don't want to admit that.
 
2013-05-17 09:12:50 AM  

hubiestubert: In fairness, Syria really is essentially a Russian issue. And have been for a long while. NATO isn't going into Syria without Russia's support. Plain and simple. Were Syria NOT under the Russian sphere of influence, things would have been put into place some time ago, but folks really don't want to admit that.


And for some strange reason,  Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?

I know, I know...welcometofark.jpeg.
 
2013-05-17 09:16:19 AM  
Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.
 
2013-05-17 09:49:04 AM  
Russia supports a dictatorship? Shaddup.
 
2013-05-17 10:14:50 AM  
gee it's not like Syria isn't bordered by Israel or Turkey or Iraq or anything...
 
2013-05-17 10:15:01 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.


The war pigs ($1 to Black Sabbath) however, don't care.  It's all 'BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!" as far as they're concerned.
 
2013-05-17 10:15:57 AM  

ginandbacon: Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?


Sure they are.

When they get enough aide to be a buyer I have doubt that Russia will get them the same arms catalog mailing list that Assad is on.
 
2013-05-17 10:16:42 AM  

jylcat: Russia supports a dictatorship? Shaddup.


Let's not get into a game of what kitchenware we are calling black.
 
2013-05-17 10:16:45 AM  

ginandbacon: Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?



Russia sends anti-ship missiles to Syria. The rebels have ships now?
 
2013-05-17 10:18:19 AM  
Putin acting like a major dick? What a surprise.
 
2013-05-17 10:21:35 AM  

ginandbacon: And for some strange reason, Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?


you didn't read the headline, did you?
 
2013-05-17 10:21:48 AM  
bloodstainedink.files.wordpress.com

Crap this IS what a UN weapons ban WAS supposed to prevent!

This is not the international rule of law you were looking for...
couldthishappen.com
 
2013-05-17 10:22:28 AM  
If we intervene, we deserve to get our shiat shot up.

We have zero national interest in intervening. No more wasted blood and treasure in that farking sandy shiathole.
 
2013-05-17 10:22:33 AM  
So you're saying that these missile are useless for influencing Syria's civil war one way or the other but could chew up imperialists that try to intervene?

Imokwiththis.png
 
2013-05-17 10:24:17 AM  

USCLaw2010: ginandbacon: Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?


Russia sends anti-ship missiles to Syria. The rebels have ships now?


*note to self: read more better*

somedude210: ginandbacon: And for some strange reason, Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?

you didn't read the headline, did you?


See above.
 
2013-05-17 10:25:09 AM  
Are Soviet Putin's ships immune from these missiles? What if one of them got loose and hit a sister ship with lots of missiles on board?

Or those mines pressure-cookers that magically attached themselves to those ships in the narrow part of the Bosphorus or Cypress (not that Cypress has two warring NATO countries' interests).
 
2013-05-17 10:25:29 AM  

ginandbacon: hubiestubert: In fairness, Syria really is essentially a Russian issue. And have been for a long while. NATO isn't going into Syria without Russia's support. Plain and simple. Were Syria NOT under the Russian sphere of influence, things would have been put into place some time ago, but folks really don't want to admit that.

And for some strange reason,  Subby

McCain & Lindwey Grahamseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?

I know, I know...welcometofark.jpeg.


FTFY
 
2013-05-17 10:25:36 AM  

Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening


Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...
 
2013-05-17 10:27:17 AM  

NostroZ: [bloodstainedink.files.wordpress.com image 500x400]

Crap this IS what a UN weapons ban WAS supposed to prevent!

This is not the international rule of law you were looking for...
[couldthishappen.com image 359x300]


This crap is exactly what a phoney baloney "Weapons Ban" is all about. Eliminate competition, not PROFITEERING from human misery and conflict inflicted on the rubes.

BTW, I bet those missiles don't work and Putin just bought a new boat.
 
2013-05-17 10:27:30 AM  
Everyone is missing the important detail; Russian anti-ship missiles look awesome, like some kind of 1950's spaceship.
 
2013-05-17 10:27:32 AM  
Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.
 
2013-05-17 10:30:06 AM  

jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.


See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.
 
2013-05-17 10:30:48 AM  

Ned Stark: So you're saying that these missile are useless for influencing Syria's civil war one way or the other but could chew up imperialists that try to intervene?

Imokwiththis.png


Imperialists tend to get chewed up a lot these days. Guerilla warfare is the only reasonable option if you're not a world power.
 
2013-05-17 10:31:52 AM  

Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.



Wait a sec...it's now racist to be pro-bathing?  Wtf did this happen?
 
2013-05-17 10:35:44 AM  

Tatsuma: Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening

Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...


we want Assad dead but we don't want terrorist groups taking over either

but that's the problem - the longer this civil war goes on the deeper any opposition group gains traction - including people we don't want to deal with

maybe had we intervened in the first 3-4 months we could've gotten our cake and eaten it too, but the Russians blocked that from happening as well as preventing another Libya-esque quick escalation in rebel control (thus causing a drawn-out conflict)

with the Russians still wanting influence there, the best route out of a never-ending civil war is for Assad to step down and leave the country - appoint a more democratic-friendly successor who signs a peace treaty and during that that weapons stockpiles are accounted for, terrorists get dispatched, a year goes by and maybe people start returning home
 
2013-05-17 10:36:50 AM  

snocone: NostroZ: [bloodstainedink.files.wordpress.com image 500x400]

Crap this IS what a UN weapons ban WAS supposed to prevent!

This is not the international rule of law you were looking for...
[couldthishappen.com image 359x300]

This crap is exactly what a phoney baloney "Weapons Ban" is all about. Eliminate competition, not PROFITEERING from human misery and conflict inflicted on the rubes.

BTW, I bet those missiles don't work and Putin just bought a new boat.


Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it?  Anti-Capitalist?)

The thing with Syria does feel like a proxy war between West / East in terms of both sides backing different factions.
 
2013-05-17 10:37:00 AM  

LL316: Wait a sec...it's now racist to be pro-bathing? Wtf did this happen?


It's racist to say that Arabs are a dirty people who can't bathe, yes.
 
2013-05-17 10:37:18 AM  
Wouldn't it be weird if the 'ignite booster' and 'detonate warhead' wires got switched somehow.
 
2013-05-17 10:37:25 AM  

Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.


It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?
 
2013-05-17 10:39:05 AM  

NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)


'Totalitarian Oligarchic capitalism masquerading as Democratic Socialism' works for me
 
2013-05-17 10:40:50 AM  
Funny, I was just thinking that what America really needs is a proxy war with Russia and Iran.
 
2013-05-17 10:40:58 AM  

LL316: Wait a sec...it's now racist to be pro-bathing? Wtf did this happen?



You can't say  'all ME people are non bathing hygene lacking brown people...'  that's too broad and you can't go there.

It's like trying to say any girl could not have a morning after pill.   You can't go there.   No one ever should be burdened with an unwanted baby.   Conversation ends.  Don't go there.

Now.   Syria, Russia and missiles.    That's where we left off....
 
2013-05-17 10:41:09 AM  
Seriously Tats??

Trust me on this one. No sane person here in the USA is worried about OMG SARIN FROM SYRIA showing up in the USA. No one. If Israel is worried, roll on in and handle your business.
Remember OMG WMD back in Iraq? Fool me once...uhh... can't get fooled again?
 
2013-05-17 10:42:14 AM  

NostroZ: [bloodstainedink.files.wordpress.com image 500x400]

Crap this IS what a UN weapons ban WAS supposed to prevent!

This is not the international rule of law you were looking for...
[couldthishappen.com image 359x300]


the rule of thumb of international law is that if you're a permanent member of the security council they're really more of guidelines than actual rules
 
2013-05-17 10:42:39 AM  

Tatsuma: It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.


Just to be clear... you are not suggesting that the U.S. military needs to get involved in Syria, or else Al-Nusra is going to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States of America, killing lots of U.S. citizens, right?

Because if you are suggesting that, please piss off.
 
2013-05-17 10:43:11 AM  

Broktun: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.

It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?


Ever actually been to the Middle East to witness said behavior? No? How about a nice warm cup of STFU then.

/In my travel experience, Middle Easterners LOVE bidets, specifically to be nice and clean
 
2013-05-17 10:45:30 AM  

jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.


What percentage of US ships carry the Aegis systems? how many are based in the Med fleet? Aegis is built to defend battle groups, not to stop rogue attacks on commercial shipping or the such. The chance of Syria attacking an Aegis guarded battle group is slim to none, the chance of them hitting Turkish, Israeli or commercial shipping is a bit higher
 
2013-05-17 10:45:37 AM  

Broktun: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.

It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?


They?  Wipe with hands?

I thought this was a joke or a minor practice... so I just looked it up... nope, and nope (toilet paper is an American innovative export to the world... thank g-d!)
 
2013-05-17 10:48:19 AM  

Tatsuma: NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)

'Totalitarian Oligarchic capitalism masquerading as Democratic Socialism' works for me


How about... Warlord Fascism?

It's got to roll off the tongue.
 
2013-05-17 10:49:15 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: Just to be clear... you are not suggesting that the U.S. military needs to get involved in Syria, or else Al-Nusra is going to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States of America, killing lots of U.S. citizens, right?

Because if you are suggesting that, please piss off.


I listed one of the interests America had to intervene in Syria. This is one of them. That does not mean that I in fact favor intervention.

And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.
 
2013-05-17 10:50:15 AM  

NostroZ: snocone: NostroZ: [bloodstainedink.files.wordpress.com image 500x400]

Crap this IS what a UN weapons ban WAS supposed to prevent!

This is not the international rule of law you were looking for...
[couldthishappen.com image 359x300]

This crap is exactly what a phoney baloney "Weapons Ban" is all about. Eliminate competition, not PROFITEERING from human misery and conflict inflicted on the rubes.

BTW, I bet those missiles don't work and Putin just bought a new boat.

Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it?  Anti-Capitalist?)

The thing with Syria does feel like a proxy war between West / East in terms of both sides backing different factions.


it's a legacy proxy conflict from the cold war and our relationship with Israel, one which actually became friendly during Bush's second term but has since spiraled out of control with the Arab Spring uprisings

and i wouldn't really say China/Russia are anti-capitalist in any sense of the word, it's more anti-dollar if anything, you've got 3 countries whose economies are propped up by debt-intense value-driven gov't-backed commodities and big populations that can reinvest in said commodities, said commodities are international investments and as such creates an international competition over investment... with the dollar being the main currency of oil trade, that means everybody else wants it out of the region and that means us being out of the region (or something like that)
 
2013-05-17 10:50:15 AM  

ginandbacon: *note to self: read more better*


We'll just assume that you started your day in a fashion consistent with your Fark handle. Lord knows I wouldn't mind similar.
 
2013-05-17 10:50:41 AM  
NostroZ: "The thing with Syria does feel like a proxy war between West / East in terms of both sides backing different factions."

They're backing different factions with some vague gestures, but not a lot of practical support. Russia is cock-blocking the UN/NATO, but they're not really *helping* Assad. Similarly the West is making noises about Assad, but they're not really *helping* the rebels either. It's like everyone is just going through the obligatory motions, keeping some plausible distance, because while they like to tweak their enemies, they don't really want to be stuck holding the bag when 'their' team wins.
 
2013-05-17 10:52:53 AM  

Tatsuma: Mr_Fabulous: Just to be clear... you are not suggesting that the U.S. military needs to get involved in Syria, or else Al-Nusra is going to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States of America, killing lots of U.S. citizens, right?
......

yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West.


You're not fooling anyone with this coy shiat. Just stop.
 
2013-05-17 10:53:20 AM  

BigNumber12: ginandbacon: *note to self: read more better*

We'll just assume that you started your day in a fashion consistent with your Fark handle. Lord knows I wouldn't mind similar.


Not gonna lie--I'm stuck here waiting for the cable guy and I *might* have had an Irish coffee...
 
2013-05-17 10:53:54 AM  
It is no more of a dick move than what we did in Libya.
 
2013-05-17 10:54:29 AM  

AdamK: with the dollar being the main currency of oil trade, that means everybody else wants it out of the region and that means us being out of the region (or something like that)


Interesting point you make, since Russia, China, and some ME & Latin countries are trying to get away from trading in dollars (they use basket of currencies, or direct swaps of goods i.e. oil for steel).
 
2013-05-17 10:55:27 AM  

NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)


(neo-)Eurasianism
 
2013-05-17 10:55:33 AM  

NostroZ: Broktun: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.

It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?

They?  Wipe with hands?

I thought this was a joke or a minor practice... so I just looked it up... nope, and nope (toilet paper is an American innovative export to the world... thank g-d!)


Look at it this way: if you had sh*t on your face would you scrub it off with water and soap or dab it off with a little square of paper and call it a day?

/shake hands?
 
2013-05-17 10:56:04 AM  

jylcat: Russia supports a dictatorship? Shaddup.


NostroZ: Broktun: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.

It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?

They?  Wipe with hands?

I thought this was a joke or a minor practice... so I just looked it up... nope, and nope (toilet paper is an American innovative export to the world... thank g-d!)

 
2013-05-17 10:56:17 AM  
Tatsuma:
And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.

Israel is not "the west"
 
2013-05-17 10:56:44 AM  

jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.


You have no idea what Aegis is. It is an anti ballistic missile system. It is not effective against cruise missiles like the p-800 that russia is accused of having delivered to Syria. There are several variants, but none of them can track more than 100 targets, and none of them can engage more than 4.

The Aegis system has never successfully defended a US ship from hostile attack, although it did help USS Vincennes shoot down a passenger liner.
 
2013-05-17 10:57:16 AM  
Those Syrians carry the Exocet anti-ship missile. They can fire them from 100 miles away. Gentlemen, this is the real thing.
 
2013-05-17 10:57:32 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Tatsuma:
And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.

Israel is not "the west"


Pish posh, it's west of lots of things!
 
2013-05-17 10:57:54 AM  

amoral: You have no idea what Aegis is. It is an anti ballistic missile system


No it's not, it's a naval surface to air system with some ABM capability
 
2013-05-17 10:58:01 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: You're not fooling anyone with this coy shiat. Just stop.


I said the West since the beginning. Europe is more likely than America, but only at first, since it's closer and well there are not really any borders in the EU.
 
2013-05-17 10:58:03 AM  

bindlestiff2600: jylcat: Russia supports a dictatorship? Shaddup.

NostroZ: Broktun: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.

It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?

They?  Wipe with hands?

I thought this was a joke or a minor practice... so I just looked it up... nope, and nope (toilet paper is an American innovative export to the world... thank g-d!)


oops sorry wanted to snark
and just reposted prior post

ahem
left handed children have a problem over there
 
2013-05-17 10:59:10 AM  

bindlestiff2600: bindlestiff2600: jylcat: Russia supports a dictatorship? Shaddup.

NostroZ: Broktun: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.

It's true. . .they do not use toilet paper.

Wipe with left, eat with right?

They?  Wipe with hands?

I thought this was a joke or a minor practice... so I just looked it up... nope, and nope (toilet paper is an American innovative export to the world... thank g-d!)

oops sorry wanted to snark
and just reposted prior post

ahem
left handed children have a problem over there


sinister little buggers, serve 'em right
 
2013-05-17 11:02:13 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Everyone is missing the important detail; Russian anti-ship missiles look awesome, like some kind of 1950's spaceship.


Well, duhhh, they are Assault Missiles!

/ gotta be scary looking
// even if they don't work
 
2013-05-17 11:03:03 AM  

LewDux: NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)

(neo-)Eurasianism


Interesting read... and nice theory, since Russia has always been viewed as the 'other' not quiet Europe, not quiet Asia, but independent and ruthless.

Still, it only applies to Russia, and not to China or Syria, or any other regime that's now pro-west.
I naturally liked my made up definition of "Warlord Fascism"
 
2013-05-17 11:03:15 AM  
Who ever wins, it's almost assured they will hate the west. Since they have chemical weapons, and are working on worse, we need to "nip it in the bud." So....
Nuke em from space. It's the only way to be sure.

We kill them to save them.

/Definitely not serious.
 
2013-05-17 11:04:39 AM  
US military industrial complex ships weapons all over the world..... just sayin'
 
2013-05-17 11:04:47 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Look at it this way: if you had sh*t on your face would you scrub it off with water and soap or dab it off with a little square of paper and call it a day?

/shake hands?


Lol.  If you read the link, you'd see that soap is not usually part of the equation.
 
2013-05-17 11:07:48 AM  

NostroZ: UrukHaiGuyz: Look at it this way: if you had sh*t on your face would you scrub it off with water and soap or dab it off with a little square of paper and call it a day?

/shake hands?

Lol.  If you read the link, you'd see that soap is not usually part of the equation.


I think that makes soap the real hero here.
 
2013-05-17 11:07:55 AM  

Private_Citizen: Who ever wins, it's almost assured they will hate the west. Since they have chemical weapons, and are working on worse, we need to "nip it in the bud." So....
Nuke em from space. It's the only way to be sure.

We kill them to save them.

/Definitely not serious.


Definitely NOT helping.

Since the reality of the view you espouse means that whoever survives your Middle-Eastern holocaust will have so much vengeance in their heart they will destroy you and the world with it.
 
2013-05-17 11:08:41 AM  
If we are to intervene in Syrian civil war, Congress should vote for it and then vote to raise taxes to pay for it. No more wars on plastic!
 
2013-05-17 11:09:38 AM  

Vectron: US military industrial complex ships weapons all over the world..... just sayin'


oh well yeah(more than anyone else in the world) but we're not (currently) arming anybody in this war. Any deal limiting the sales of weapons that does not have the USA, Russia and China on board is basically a waste of time.
 
2013-05-17 11:13:43 AM  

NostroZ: Private_Citizen: Who ever wins, it's almost assured they will hate the west. Since they have chemical weapons, and are working on worse, we need to "nip it in the bud." So....
Nuke em from space. It's the only way to be sure.

We kill them to save them.

/Definitely not serious.

Definitely NOT helping.

Since the reality of the view you espouse means that whoever survives your Middle-Eastern holocaust will have so much vengeance in their heart they will destroy you and the world with it.


They already have an undying, unquenchable hatred in their heart. Nuking a few of them won't change that. But it will - "eventually" - teach them not to provoke the dynamite monkey.

"Eventually"- because we'll probably have to nuke a few more before they get the message.

/Still Not serious.
 
2013-05-17 11:18:05 AM  

Tatsuma: Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening

Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...


couldn't we just bomb all suspected chemical weapon storage sites in Syria? Israel bombed a bunch of sites they suspected of having weapons they didn't want to fall in the wrong hands... and Syria hasn't retaliated because it can't fight israel and a civil war at the same time. Same would probably happen if NATO planes conducted a series of raids from bases in Turkey. (Can chemical weapons' sites be bombed withou risking massive contamination... or is that not possible?)
 
2013-05-17 11:19:26 AM  

Private_Citizen: They already have an undying, unquenchable hatred in their heart. Nuking a few of them won't change that. But it will - "eventually" - teach them not to provoke the dynamite monkey.

"Eventually"- because we'll probably have to nuke a few more before they get the message.

/Still Not serious.


Okay, okay, you got me... they already do hate us with the unquenchable thirst of a thousand suns.

Maybe if we have a good excuse like we did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki...  you know, invade their country and when they fight back, just say "our losses are too great and this will be too difficult to do conventionally... nuke em!  Nuke em today... Nuke em tomorrow... and tell them WE'LL KEEP NUKING THEM EVERY DAY AFTER"

That's how you become a world power

/Somewhat serious
 
2013-05-17 11:21:49 AM  

amoral: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

You have no idea what Aegis is. It is an anti ballistic missile system. It is not effective against cruise missiles like the p-800 that russia is accused of having delivered to Syria. There are several variants, but none of them can track more than 100 targets, and none of them can engage more than 4.

The Aegis system has never successfully defended a US ship from hostile attack, although it did help USS Vincennes shoot down a passenger liner.


YOU have no idea what Aegis is. Anti-ballistic missile capability is only part of what Aegis does. Aegis equipped destroyers are used to protect carrier battle groups from incoming missiles and aircraft. This includes cruise missile defense. The relevant paper from the Rand Corporation can be found here

You are correct about the 100 target limitation.
 
2013-05-17 11:23:29 AM  
Since when do the Russians all dress like James Bond henchmen.
I'll never complain about Navy denim again...!
 
2013-05-17 11:26:04 AM  

NostroZ: LewDux: NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)

(neo-)Eurasianism

Interesting read... and nice theory, since Russia has always been viewed as the 'other' not quiet Europe, not quiet Asia, but independent and ruthless.

Still, it only applies to Russia, and not to China or Syria, or any other regime that's now pro-west.
I naturally liked my made up definition of "Warlord Fascism"


But China uses pretty much same logic - we are different (and superior) people, and western democracy doesn't work here so STFU and be happy that trains run on time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Democracy

Not sure about "Warlord" part but..
www.narodni-bolsevik.org
 
2013-05-17 11:26:54 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Vectron: US military industrial complex ships weapons all over the world..... just sayin'

oh well yeah(more than anyone else in the world) but we're not (currently) arming anybody in this war. Any deal limiting the sales of weapons that does not have the USA, Russia and China on board is basically a waste of time.


A little off topic but I read that the US has already funded the rebel forces in the amount of 300 million dollars.

My question is, are there kickbacks to US politicians? Is the agreement that, say, 5% comes back to Obama and members of his cabinet?
 
2013-05-17 11:29:05 AM  

tlenon: Since when do the Russians all dress like James Bond henchmen.
I'll never complain about Navy denim again...!


Since ALWAYS because the James Bond henchmen/supervillains were BASED on Russians.
www.enzian.org

www.foreignpolicy.com
No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die...
 
2013-05-17 11:32:44 AM  
 
2013-05-17 11:33:19 AM  

LewDux: NostroZ: LewDux: NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)

(neo-)Eurasianism

Interesting read... and nice theory, since Russia has always been viewed as the 'other' not quiet Europe, not quiet Asia, but independent and ruthless.

Still, it only applies to Russia, and not to China or Syria, or any other regime that's now pro-west.
I naturally liked my made up definition of "Warlord Fascism"

But China uses pretty much same logic - we are different (and superior) people, and western democracy doesn't work here so STFU and be happy that trains run on time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Democracy

Not sure about "Warlord" part but..
[www.narodni-bolsevik.org image 427x600]


Guided Democracy... there's that Orwellian word I've been looking for... perfectly detached for academia (and why not, it's hard to find fault with billions of people only because they act different than you).
 
2013-05-17 11:35:57 AM  

Tatsuma: Mr_Fabulous: You're not fooling anyone with this coy shiat. Just stop.

I said the West since the beginning. Europe is more likely than America, but only at first, since it's closer and well there are not really any borders in the EU.



Well shucks... the impressive consistency of your coyness and duplicity have won me over, by Jove!
Send in the U.S. Marines! Let the blood flow!

Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?
 
2013-05-17 11:36:48 AM  

ginandbacon: BigNumber12: ginandbacon: *note to self: read more better*

We'll just assume that you started your day in a fashion consistent with your Fark handle. Lord knows I wouldn't mind similar.

Not gonna lie--I'm stuck here waiting for the cable guy and I *might* have had an Irish coffee...



It's the price we pay for cable. Stay strong.
 
2013-05-17 11:37:25 AM  
Vectron:
A little off topic but I read that the US has already funded the rebel forces in the amount of 300 million dollars.

"non-lethal aid" is code for food and medical supplies and probably a few trucks to haul it all around. I said that the US wasn't selling guns to anybody in this war not that they aren't involved at all. US foreign aid isn't just a way to launder public funds and funnel into the pockets of politicians BUT(big "but") aid money is often used to buy money from US suppliers or manufacturers which can be constituents of congressmen who approved the spending. So the short answer to your "question" is "no" US foreign aid is a carrot used to achieve specific foreign policy goals, the longer answer is: it's complicated.
 
2013-05-17 11:38:08 AM  

Tatsuma: Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening

Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...


So we should just unleash Israel and park ships off of their coast, telling the rest of the ME that reprisals against Israel will not be tolerated. Syria, Hezbollah, theseare all immediate threats to Israel, not to the US. We should not put our forces on the line in what is not our direct fight. We can neither afford it, nor do we have the forces to spare.
 
2013-05-17 11:39:19 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.


To be fair, Russia isn't particularly likely to be willing to go to war over it either.
 
2013-05-17 11:39:46 AM  

kbronsito: couldn't we just bomb all suspected chemical weapon storage sites in Syria?


Well that in itself would require Western intervention, but yes it's most likely the best short-term situation. We'd probably have to destroy a whole lot of government labs associated with research and kill a whole bunch of scientists as well. It's not like this stuff will not be lying around (or cowering under bed) once the rebels take over.

kbronsito: Same would probably happen if NATO planes conducted a series of raids from bases in Turkey


Except that if this happened, bombs would start exploding all over Turkey like they did a few days ago, and Turkey would massively push for NATO boots on the ground, and it'd be hard to argue against it. They very well might say 'Intervene or we're out'.

kbronsito: (Can chemical weapons' sites be bombed withou risking massive contamination... or is that not possible?)


For the most part, absolutely
 
2013-05-17 11:39:51 AM  

amoral: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

You have no idea what Aegis is. It is an anti ballistic missile system. It is not effective against cruise missiles like the p-800 that russia is accused of having delivered to Syria. There are several variants, but none of them can track more than 100 targets, and none of them can engage more than 4.

The Aegis system has never successfully defended a US ship from hostile attack, although it did help USS Vincennes shoot down a passenger liner.


Unfortunately, you have no idea what Aegis is either.  It's an integrated defense system consisting of many layers (VLS/Phalanx are two.)  It is designed to shoot down standoff threats from aircraft, ships, subs, land cruise missiles and AFTER A TEST YESTERDAY AND A NEW MODEL SM (:standard missile" RIM 161) it will hopefully shoot down ballistic missile threats.  The ACS/AWS system even goes so far as to control torpedo launches from helos, ship's guns, harpoon anti-ship missiles and tomahawk land attack missiles as well as basically every other weapon system in the fleet.

You also seem to somehow imply it isn't effective because we haven't had a major naval conflict.  In fact it has tested superbly and the Vincennes incident was a result of a failure on the part of the Captain, not the system.

I'm also not sure where you got able to track "100" targets and engage "4."  That's ridiculous.  As for the P-800, Syria has had them since 2010.  From Defense Update speaking of the P-800 and AEGIS "AEGIS systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the European PAAMS, used by the Royal Navy, French and Italian navies and Israel's new Barak 8 ship air defense system are designed to match such treats."http://defense-update.com/20100920_yakhont_in_syria.html
 
2013-05-17 11:41:47 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: Well shucks... the impressive consistency of your coyness and duplicity have won me over, by Jove!
Send in the U.S. Marines! Let the blood flow!

Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?


farking duplicitous jews, always trying to get good non-Jewish Americans to fight their wars for them

Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

MmmmBacon: So we should just unleash Israel and park ships off of their coast, telling the rest of the ME that reprisals against Israel will not be tolerated. Syria, Hezbollah, theseare all immediate threats to Israel, not to the US. We should not put our forces on the line in what is not our direct fight. We can neither afford it, nor do we have the forces to spare.


Al-Nusra is Al-Qaeda and they are absolutely a threat to Europe and America, not Israel at all, in fact.
 
2013-05-17 11:42:44 AM  

Tatsuma: Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening

Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...


Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence. This is likewise, why we--as in the US--didn't intervene in Ossetia, despite some strongly worded letters from the UN, and the rumblings of the start of ethnic cleansing--which oddly enough is EXACTLY why the Ossetians helped the Bolsheviks in the first place.

I understand that Israel really likes to throw the US and our influence around as back up, but in this case, Syria is pretty much a no go. Until the Russians sign off on any action, it's not going to happen. Unless Israel wants to go it alone, because otherwise, Europe has zero interest in clashing with anyone close to the Russian border. The Turks aren't exactly happy with things either, but Syria is too close to the border, and has too much interest in that region. That is their bailiwick, and until the Russians sign off on anything, it's not going to happen. And moreover: Israel knows this. Moreover, supporting the rebels is a no joy situation. Supporting Assad is no joy as well. This is a situation that has the potential to be far worse than Bosnia and Somalia, but without more UN support, it's not going to happen, because the Russians aren't moving, save to keep things shored up enough that it doesn't spill over. The Turks aren't real happy with it, Iran is certainly not happy with it, but until the Russians say, "Yeah, let's do this" it's not going to happen. If things get too dicey, the Russians will dismantle the whole damn country, and leave it for the UN to clean up, and probably blame Turk peacekeepers as quickly as possible, but you already know this, so playing cheerleader for the US to do anything is only so much noise making.

It's not that folks don't care. It's not that folks don't understand the situation. The problem is that folks do understand it, and understand that there is no joy in going in there, and no amount of shaming and finger waggling is going to change the facts.
 
2013-05-17 11:43:35 AM  
More likely for Hezbolla to take out an Israeli frigate.   Time to drop a few thousand missles on Damascus I think.   Let Israel do it.
 
2013-05-17 11:44:32 AM  
Sell missiles to Syria
Sell the technology to knock out the missiles to NATO

Double French Exocet Profit Achieved!

I know Russia would never sell the technology to knock any new Russian missiles down. Old ones, why not? "Oh dear. It seems NATO has figured out how to destroy your missiles. Well, they can't knock down these new ones. How many would you like? Nope. No trade-ins.
 
2013-05-17 11:46:38 AM  
woooh! We got a bad ass over here!
 
2013-05-17 11:48:01 AM  
If Sryians want to kill each other, why does the US care? Whoever wins won't be out friend.
 
2013-05-17 11:48:14 AM  
Remember, this America's version of a world map is satirical:
ct.fra.bz
It's funny because it's true that American's oversimplify the world...
 
2013-05-17 11:48:19 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: woooh! We got a bad ass over here!



Now with picture goodness!!

img5.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-17 11:50:15 AM  

Vectron: My God these poor rebels need silverware! nsfw


Daaaamn. That's hardcore.
 
2013-05-17 11:50:56 AM  
i1.kym-cdn.com

I actually had a boss who had this map up in his office... suffice it to say, we did not get along.
 
2013-05-17 11:50:57 AM  
Vladimir Putin to Bashar al-Assad: "Dance puppet, dance!"
 
2013-05-17 11:50:57 AM  

NostroZ: Remember, this America's version of a world map is satirical:
[ct.fra.bz image 604x341]
It's funny because it's true that American's oversimplify the world...


Oh right and people don't do that, like say the way Europeans or Middle-Easterners see America and Americans.
 
2013-05-17 11:53:05 AM  
Assad's check must have cleared.
 
2013-05-17 11:54:55 AM  
Ah, it's this thread again.  It's like Mad Libs.
 
2013-05-17 11:54:56 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.


As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.
 
2013-05-17 11:56:24 AM  

Tatsuma: NostroZ: Remember, this America's version of a world map is satirical:
[ct.fra.bz image 604x341]
It's funny because it's true that American's oversimplify the world...

Oh right and people don't do that, like say the way Europeans or Middle-Easterners see America and Americans.


It's true... it's a human instinct to rely on heuristic experiences and often our experiences when faced with the 'other' is lacking in understanding.

I remember in Italy I had this guy at a pub getting in my face acting as though I represent George Bush, saying things like "You Americans with your McDonlad's culture... forcing the world... blah blah blah"  as though I was going to come back to the USA and have a direct conference with the President and relay his insightful criticism.
 
2013-05-17 11:56:45 AM  

NostroZ: I actually had a boss who had this map up in his office... suffice it to say, we did not get along.


In the 80s? Fairly accurate map
 
2013-05-17 11:57:20 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: NostroZ: I actually had a boss who had this map up in his office... suffice it to say, we did not get along.

In the 80s? Fairly accurate map


His mind was stuck in the 80s.

A lot of conservatives minds are stuck in that decade.
 
2013-05-17 12:03:28 PM  

Tatsuma: NostroZ:

Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)

'Totalitarian Oligarchic capitalism masquerading as Democratic Socialism' works for me

.

Since when have the Putinist Empire and the domain ruled by the Chinese Capitalist Party masqueraded as democratic socialism? Russia, which wants nothing to do with anything like socialism now, masquerades as a democracy (and it's such a thin disguise nobody really believes it); and China, which ain't democratic neither, characterises its system as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (which characteristics include nothing pertaining to socialism). Both countries have been ruled by openly capitalist oligarchs since 1992 at the latest, though one could argue Deng restored capitalism in China as early as 1980.

Neither the USSR nor "Red" China was ever really socialist or communist: I call them state capitalist, briefly defined as "government owning the farms & factories and exploiting the workers & farmers directly;" in "1984" Orwell called it "Oligarchical Collectivism" and exaggerated for dramatic effect, but describes pretty well how it worked.

And by the way, I gotta break it to subby and to interventionists in general: one of the defining characteristics of "sovereign" "nation-states" is the "right" to "self-defense." (Briefly, "the other guy has a right to duck and hit back.") Whether this is a bug or a feature is irrelevant to the definition.

C'mon y'all, you CAN do better.
 
2013-05-17 12:06:26 PM  
snocone:

This crap is exactly what a phoney baloney "Weapons Ban" is all about. Eliminate competition, not PROFITEERING from human misery and conflict inflicted on the rubes.

Very much THIS.


BTW, I bet those missiles don't work and Putin just bought a new boat.

Ah yes, the monkey models (link).
 
2013-05-17 12:08:32 PM  

Vectron: US military industrial complex ships weapons all over the world..... just sayin'


This. It's awfully hard to get upset about something we do literally every day.. We arm russia's enemies too, sometimes very deliberately.

//it is a little disappointing on the "making progress" stage that we're still getting into proxy wars decades later..
 
2013-05-17 12:08:33 PM  

The One True TheDavid: Neither the USSR nor "Red" China was ever really socialist or communist: I call them state capitalist, briefly defined as "government owning the farms & factories and exploiting the workers & farmers directly;" in "1984" Orwell called it "Oligarchical Collectivism" and exaggerated for dramatic effect, but describes pretty well how it worked.

And by the way, I gotta break it to subby and to interventionists in general: one of the defining characteristics of "sovereign" "nation-states" is the "right" to "self-defense." (Briefly, "the other guy has a right to duck and hit back.") Whether this is a bug or a feature is irrelevant to the definition.


Well said... sovereignty is so often overlooked when discussing world politics.

And yes, China/Russia are Oligarchical Collectivists since there is clearly a ruling class and the rest are just Slav's.

One thing I do have to point out about sovereignty is that there is allegedly this thing called International Human Rights and International Law... theory goes that when a state does something SO BAD, we as a moral world, MUST step in.

Practically speaking it means endless finger pointing at Israel and allowing a genocide in Sudan to go on for a decade.
 
2013-05-17 12:11:08 PM  

NostroZ: The One True TheDavid: Neither the USSR nor "Red" China was ever really socialist or communist: I call them state capitalist, briefly defined as "government owning the farms & factories and exploiting the workers & farmers directly;" in "1984" Orwell called it "Oligarchical Collectivism" and exaggerated for dramatic effect, but describes pretty well how it worked.

And by the way, I gotta break it to subby and to interventionists in general: one of the defining characteristics of "sovereign" "nation-states" is the "right" to "self-defense." (Briefly, "the other guy has a right to duck and hit back.") Whether this is a bug or a feature is irrelevant to the definition.

Well said... sovereignty is so often overlooked when discussing world politics.

And yes, China/Russia are Oligarchical Collectivists since there is clearly a ruling class and the rest are just Slav's.

One thing I do have to point out about sovereignty is that there is allegedly this thing called International Human Rights and International Law... theory goes that when a state does something SO BAD, we as a moral world, MUST step in.

Practically speaking it means endless finger pointing at Israel and allowing a genocide in Sudan to go on for a decade.


mnftiu.cc
 
2013-05-17 12:14:07 PM  

Psylence: If we intervene, we deserve to get our shiat shot up.

We have zero national interest in intervening. No more wasted blood and treasure in that farking sandy shiathole.


Problem is, WE created this mess, so we may have to clean it up as well?  The Syrian Rebels? A large  percentage of them are militant Salafists whose leaders Assad's father locked up in  his jails.   Back in 2003 when Iraq was looking like it was all smiles and Top Gun Montages and Mission Accomplished banners, a lot of the architects of the Iraq war were pointing Babe Ruth Style at Syria, essentially telling Assad "you got next".  Assad decided the longer we were busy with Iraq, the less likely he was to be invaded so he went to those miltant Salafist guys and struck a deal with them,  He'd let them out of jail and give them their guns back and  a one-way ticket to the Iraqi border where they could go Jihad to their heart's content against the American infidels there.  Thus "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was born...Syrian fighters backed by Saudi cash fighting the Iraqi shiate majority during the Sunni-shiate civil war.     After the "anbar Awakening" when the local Iraqi Sunnis decided these guys were more trouble than they were worth, and things in Iraq starting claming down, these were basically rebels without a country.    At that point Syria looked like a softer target than Iraq which was still backed by the US military....so they decided to go home and start a revolution.  So basically we've really got  no one to root for in this fight, but we more or less made it happen
 
2013-05-17 12:16:53 PM  

Magorn: Psylence: If we intervene, we deserve to get our shiat shot up.

We have zero national interest in intervening. No more wasted blood and treasure in that farking sandy shiathole.

Problem is, WE created this mess, so we may have to clean it up as well?  The Syrian Rebels? A large  percentage of them are militant Salafists whose leaders Assad's father locked up in  his jails.   Back in 2003 when Iraq was looking like it was all smiles and Top Gun Montages and Mission Accomplished banners, a lot of the architects of the Iraq war were pointing Babe Ruth Style at Syria, essentially telling Assad "you got next".  Assad decided the longer we were busy with Iraq, the less likely he was to be invaded so he went to those miltant Salafist guys and struck a deal with them,  He'd let them out of jail and give them their guns back and  a one-way ticket to the Iraqi border where they could go Jihad to their heart's content against the American infidels there.  Thus "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was born...Syrian fighters backed by Saudi cash fighting the Iraqi shiate majority during the Sunni-shiate civil war.     After the "anbar Awakening" when the local Iraqi Sunnis decided these guys were more trouble than they were worth, and things in Iraq starting claming down, these were basically rebels without a country.    At that point Syria looked like a softer target than Iraq which was still backed by the US military....so they decided to go home and start a revolution.  So basically we've really got  no one to root for in this fight, but we more or less made it happen



One thing countries seem to never learn is that sometimes the best thing one can do is just walk away.  No matter how great the crazy sex is, at the end of the day, crazy will kill you.  Sometimes, even when you're partially to blame for setting in motion the events that led to your house being set of fire, it's just better to walk away and not leave a forwarding address.
 
2013-05-17 12:17:55 PM  
How else is Russia supposed to test their missiles?   If the Syrians can hit US ships with them, then they should work just fine for the Russian Navy too.
 
2013-05-17 12:20:07 PM  

Magorn: Assad decided the longer we were busy with Iraq, the less likely he was to be invaded so he went to those miltant Salafist guys and struck a deal with them, He'd let them out of jail and give them their guns back and a one-way ticket to the Iraqi border where they could go Jihad to their heart's content against the American infidels there. Thus "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was born...Syrian fighters backed by Saudi cash fighting the Iraqi shiate majority during the Sunni-shiate civil war. After the "anbar Awakening" when the local Iraqi Sunnis decided these guys were more trouble than they were worth, and things in Iraq starting claming down, these were basically rebels without a country. At that point Syria looked like a softer target than Iraq which was still backed by the US military....so they decided to go home and start a revolution. So basically we've really got no one to root for in this fight, but we more or less made it happen


Now, now... I do appreciate your extensive knowledge on the issue, but if you read above, you'll notice Assad as the key decision maker.  Essentially, his choice of cure ended up being worse than the disease.  He was the idiot who released the very people who were put there because they wanted to topple his government.  It's not our fault that a totalitarian leader clings to power at the cost to his own people.
 
2013-05-17 12:21:17 PM  

Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.


You sound stinky...
 
2013-05-17 12:22:29 PM  
jwilson07:  Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene

I'll bet the coalition of religious, political and ethnic minorities the Assads patiently assembled uses toilet paper, hand sanitizer and toothbrushes. But not on the same orifice, of course.

Al Qaeda, a.k.a. "the rebels," are very likely to wipe their butts with their left hands, clean their hands with dirt and brush their teeth with sticks. Most of them don't understand the Koran any better than I do.
 
2013-05-17 12:24:34 PM  

jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.


First off AEGIS is not magic! It is good but it's still a man made system and has it's vulnerabilities. Secondly it can't track 1000 targets BUT even if it could it an Arleigh Burke DDG do not carry anywhere close to that many missiles.

The SSN 26 is a very advanced high supersonic ASM and if there are a few coming my way I would NOT want to be on that ship AEGIS or not.

For some strange reason a lot of civies think AEGIS is some super duper system made by God/Ctuhulu himself and can defeat anything including aliens or photon torpedoes fired from X-Wing class fighters LOL. It isn't. .. and as an FYI the Phalanx CIWS is not invincible either.
 
2013-05-17 12:24:35 PM  
It's funny, I remember awhile back when certain people went bonkers because it was suggested that maybe Russia was basically still our enemy for all intents and purposes.
 
2013-05-17 12:25:23 PM  

Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.


Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.
 
2013-05-17 12:30:09 PM  

randomjsa: It's funny, I remember awhile back when certain people went bonkers because it was suggested that maybe Russia was basically still our enemy for all intents and purposes.


Well they will be if we jump headlong into proxy wars with them. Doesn't mean it's a great idea.
 
2013-05-17 12:31:51 PM  

Magorn: Psylence: If we intervene, we deserve to get our shiat shot up.

We have zero national interest in intervening. No more wasted blood and treasure in that farking sandy shiathole.

Problem is, WE created this mess, so we may have to clean it up as well?  The Syrian Rebels? A large  percentage of them are militant Salafists whose leaders Assad's father locked up in  his jails.   Back in 2003 when Iraq was looking like it was all smiles and Top Gun Montages and Mission Accomplished banners, a lot of the architects of the Iraq war were pointing Babe Ruth Style at Syria, essentially telling Assad "you got next".  Assad decided the longer we were busy with Iraq, the less likely he was to be invaded so he went to those miltant Salafist guys and struck a deal with them,  He'd let them out of jail and give them their guns back and  a one-way ticket to the Iraqi border where they could go Jihad to their heart's content against the American infidels there.  Thus "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was born...Syrian fighters backed by Saudi cash fighting the Iraqi shiate majority during the Sunni-shiate civil war.     After the "anbar Awakening" when the local Iraqi Sunnis decided these guys were more trouble than they were worth, and things in Iraq starting claming down, these were basically rebels without a country.    At that point Syria looked like a softer target than Iraq which was still backed by the US military....so they decided to go home and start a revolution.  So basically we've really got  no one to root for in this fight, but we more or less made it happen


Such is the case with just about every nationstate in the ME. I'm just saying that we need to walk away, and stop trying to "fix" shiat that likely cannot be fixed by us, if at all. Can we please stop jamming our dicks into that hornets nest??

We dun goofed. More death will fix.... what?
 
2013-05-17 12:32:19 PM  
Fark, I'm dissapoint.

www.chicagonow.com
 
2013-05-17 12:33:49 PM  

randomjsa: It's funny, I remember awhile back when certain people went bonkers because it was suggested that maybe Russia was basically still our enemy for all intents and purposes.


Hah - I do too. Older people with a "we beat them and that's that" mentality, or younger people with "it's the 21st Century and the world is more enlightened than that" delusion?
 
2013-05-17 12:36:00 PM  

Ned Stark: Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.

Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.


Have you seen me? I'm not particularly convincing.

Whether or not you WANT to intervene is pointless. The questions that are significant?

1). What's best for our nation? Do we share ownership or responsibility for this war?
2). If intervention is best - what's the most effective way to intervene with the least amount of money and American casualties?

To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd. We, as a nation, have to answer these questions. The Fark Armchair Brigade doesn't own exclusive rights to this decision.
 
2013-05-17 12:36:45 PM  

NostroZ: What tree are you trying to bark up there Mr.Fabulous?

All I hear is an anti-Semitic dog whistle (insinuating Israel wants America to fight Syria and Tats is their mouthpiece).  What shred of credibility were you looking for and what message were you trying to make, aside from "Jews fight their wars by proxy".


Then you need to learn how to read.

My point is a simple one. If someone is asserting that I and my fellow countrymen need to spend blood and treasure on military misadventures because OUR nation is being threatened... ok, show me how. Because it seems exceptionally unlikely in this case.

If they are asserting that I and my fellow countrymen need to spend blood and treasure on military misadventures because SOMEONE ELSE'S nation is being threatened... they should just say so, and stop trying to confuse the issue with spin.

There are no references to religion or ethnicity, of any kind, in my previous posts. Nor was it implied. Not in any way.
 
2013-05-17 12:37:14 PM  
I'm not clicking any dailyfail link with the word " dick " in it. Learned my lesson with the " hottie " links.
 
2013-05-17 12:42:40 PM  

NostroZ: Tatsuma: NostroZ: Yup, a weapons ban is worthless if Russia/China are not abstaining... since they are the MAIN competition for the 'other side' (it's not Communism anymore... what shall we call it? Anti-Capitalist?)

'Totalitarian Oligarchic capitalism masquerading as Democratic Socialism' works for me

How about... Warlord Fascism?


That works for the US/NATO thing, yeah.
 
2013-05-17 12:53:13 PM  

Bontesla: To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd

ly easy

1. They asked for it
2. Oh look, Biebshaming thread!
 
2013-05-17 12:59:26 PM  

Vectron: My God these poor rebels need silverware! nsfw


Yuck, liver.
 
2013-05-17 01:00:50 PM  

Vectron: If we are to intervene in Syrian civil war, Congress should vote for it and then vote to raise taxes to pay for it. No more wars on plastic!


Your taxes dont pay for those things, they only payoff some of the ever increasing intrest on the money already spent that was loaned by the Federal Reserve..
 
2013-05-17 01:04:17 PM  
Tatsuma:

And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.

HUH? In the USA, in 12 years the only followup to "9/11" was the Boston Boomathon, and that was a couple of Leaderless Resistants who did their own shopping.

If you want Israel to attack Syria don't try to drag "the West" into it any more than it already is. Jewish guys from the suburbs of Baltimore have been joining the IDF for 40 years already; they tell me that that's not the only place where they do that. And don't ask for any more hardware from the USA: if Israel doesn't have enough already let them buy from China like we do.

If ME warlord states can't fight each other by themselves they should merge into one of the Empires. Hint: the Arabs think of the State of Israel as a US/NATO Pale already. Did you know Jews have been allowed to vote in the USA since the Revolutionary War? We Murricans love our Hebraic brethren of the Mosaic faith so much that Obama's cousin-in-law is a rabbi!
 
2013-05-17 01:08:50 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: NostroZ: What tree are you trying to bark up there Mr.Fabulous?

All I hear is an anti-Semitic dog whistle (insinuating Israel wants America to fight Syria and Tats is their mouthpiece).  What shred of credibility were you looking for and what message were you trying to make, aside from "Jews fight their wars by proxy".

Then you need to learn how to read.

My point is a simple one. If someone is asserting that I and my fellow countrymen need to spend blood and treasure on military misadventures because OUR nation is being threatened... ok, show me how. Because it seems exceptionally unlikely in this case.

If they are asserting that I and my fellow countrymen need to spend blood and treasure on military misadventures because SOMEONE ELSE'S nation is being threatened... they should just say so, and stop trying to confuse the issue with spin.

There are no references to religion or ethnicity, of any kind, in my previous posts. Nor was it implied. Not in any way.


I do know how to read and you've OBVIOUSLY once AGAIN repeated your dog-whistle with the "they are asserting" (who is this they? since we were talking about Jews, that's what you mean).  And no, no one was asserting that the USA needs to go into Syria on behalf of ANYONE else.  Not me, not Tatsuma, not Israel... that's your phony position to make.

You sound like one of those kooks that thinks the US started the war in Iraq because of the Jews, instead of accepting the reality that we were misled by our leaders.

Just so you know... it's OUR blood and treasure my fellow American Farker... please don't pick-up the whistle of "Jews hold double loyalties and choose Israel over their host country".  Israel can take care of themselves... Please take care of your own inherent racism Mr. Fabulous, I'm sure you picked it up by accident, but you'll have to make a choice to drop it.
 
2013-05-17 01:13:31 PM  

NostroZ: [i1.kym-cdn.com image 850x601]

I actually had a boss who had this map up in his office... suffice it to say, we did not get along.


Because he had a sense of humor? Imagine that.
 
2013-05-17 01:15:04 PM  

NostroZ: I do know how to read


Apparently not.


You sound like one of those kooks

Wow. Project much?
 
2013-05-17 01:17:36 PM  

The One True TheDavid: Tatsuma:

And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.

HUH? In the USA, in 12 years the only followup to "9/11" was the Boston Boomathon, and that was a couple of Leaderless Resistants who did their own shopping.

If you want Israel to attack Syria don't try to drag "the West" into it any more than it already is. Jewish guys from the suburbs of Baltimore have been joining the IDF for 40 years already; they tell me that that's not the only place where they do that. And don't ask for any more hardware from the USA: if Israel doesn't have enough already let them buy from China like we do.

If ME warlord states can't fight each other by themselves they should merge into one of the Empires. Hint: the Arabs think of the State of Israel as a US/NATO Pale already. Did you know Jews have been allowed to vote in the USA since the Revolutionary War? We Murricans love our Hebraic brethren of the Mosaic faith so much that Obama's cousin-in-law is a rabbi!


www.silverfishlongboarding.com

? Are you a southern racist who believes that Jews should NOT have been allowed to vote before the blacks ?

? Do you think it's a Jewish conspiracy that Obama's cousin-in-law is Jewish ?

? Do you honestly think that without Israel the Arab world would welcome the US empire ?
 
2013-05-17 01:20:01 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: NostroZ: I do know how to read

Apparently not.


You sound like one of those kooks

Wow. Project much?


Seriously... answer me this question.

Do you believe Jews / Israel were responsible for bringing the US into a war with Iraq?
 
2013-05-17 01:22:39 PM  

Tatsuma: I've clearly said that America is more at threat from these chemical weapons than Israel ever will be.


At threat from "these chemical weapons"... wielded specifically by Al-Nusra, as you asserted earlier? Is that actually what you are saying?

Because if so, well, thanks for the clarity. I like a good, solid, unambiguous answer (however laughably wrong it may be). Good for you, go in peace, that's all the answer I wanted.
 
2013-05-17 01:26:56 PM  
Tatsuma:

You used the word 'duplicitous' and you said I wanted to send US Marines to die for the sake of Israel when I've clearly said that America is more at threat from these chemical weapons than Israel ever will be.

"Let's you & him fight" much? If you want to annul stereotypes stop incarnating them.

The USA is as likely to be hit by any outside force's chemical weapons as I am to be elected Lubavitcher rebbe. The closest we'll ever get is some US-resident or even citizen frat-boy types (albeit perhaps of the Islamic persuasion, as were the Tsarnaevs) playing around with bottles of bleach.

Hebrew please. You're r-e-a-l-l-y s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g.

Let the Likud clique invade Syria if they want. Just don't try to get the USA to do it: we learned our lesson when Bush Jr made Colin Powell embarrass himself with a vial of baby powder over Iran's agenda in Iraq.

Okay? Okay.
 
2013-05-17 01:27:25 PM  

Bontesla: Ned Stark: Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.

Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.

Have you seen me? I'm not particularly convincing.

Whether or not you WANT to intervene is pointless. The questions that are significant?

1). What's best for our nation? Do we share ownership or responsibility for this war?
2). If intervention is best - what's the most effective way to intervene with the least amount of money and American casualties?

To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd. We, as a nation, have to answer these questions. The Fark Armchair Brigade doesn't own exclusive rights to this decision.


You've buried a whole host of questions into that #1.

And, no it isn't a hard question. The US no cause or reason to kill a bunch of Syrians. So, the US shouldn't kill a bunch of Syrians. It is an astoundingly simple calculus. Quit atoning your hands over it
 
2013-05-17 01:28:13 PM  

NostroZ: Seriously... answer me this question.

Do you believe Jews / Israel were responsible for bringing the US into a war with Iraq?


Oh for fark's sake.

Unless Dick farking Cheney decided to convert and didn't tell anyone, then no. Furthermore, I have a solid 10-year record on this site of blaming the Bush/Cheney administration for the Iraq clusterfark... dating before the actual war itself started.

Now seriously, answer me this question... go fark yourself.
 
2013-05-17 01:34:44 PM  
Has a real news source reported this? Looks like another Mail Online troll to me.
 
2013-05-17 01:36:11 PM  

Ned Stark: Bontesla: Ned Stark: Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.

Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.

Have you seen me? I'm not particularly convincing.

Whether or not you WANT to intervene is pointless. The questions that are significant?

1). What's best for our nation? Do we share ownership or responsibility for this war?
2). If intervention is best - what's the most effective way to intervene with the least amount of money and American casualties?

To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd. We, as a nation, have to answer these questions. The Fark Armchair Brigade doesn't own exclusive rights to this decision.

You've buried a whole host of questions into that #1.

And, no it isn't a hard question. The US no cause or reason to kill a bunch of Syrians. So, the US shouldn't kill a bunch of Syrians. It is an astoundingly simple calculus. Quit atoning your hands over it


Wringing your hands, that is. What the hell, spellcheck?
 
2013-05-17 01:46:53 PM  

somedude210: ginandbacon: And for some strange reason, Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?

you didn't read the headline, did you?


Who reads headlines? I just close my eyes and click randomly around the screen. Have I been doing it wrong this whole time?
 
2013-05-17 01:51:12 PM  

LL316: Tatsuma: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.


Wait a sec...it's now racist to be pro-bathing?  Wtf did this happen?


The same time as the dirty commies invaded The U.S. educational system.
 
2013-05-17 01:55:39 PM  

Ned Stark: Bontesla: Ned Stark: Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.

Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.

Have you seen me? I'm not particularly convincing.

Whether or not you WANT to intervene is pointless. The questions that are significant?

1). What's best for our nation? Do we share ownership or responsibility for this war?
2). If intervention is best - what's the most effective way to intervene with the least amount of money and American casualties?

To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd. We, as a nation, have to answer these questions. The Fark Armchair Brigade doesn't own exclusive rights to this decision.

You've buried a whole host of questions into that #1.

And, no it isn't a hard question. The US no cause or reason to kill a bunch of Syrians. So, the US shouldn't kill a bunch of Syrians. It is an astoundingly simple calculus. Quit atoning your hands over it


There are a whole lot of questions in number one hence it's a difficult one to answer.

You're also assuming a lot of premises in your conclusion.
 
2013-05-17 01:57:17 PM  

mizchief: Ned Stark: Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.

Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.

+1 unless you are willing to go fight or have done so in the past you have absolutely no right to encourage any military conflict outside of real self defense. STFU while the real grown ups are talking. .


+1 for being ridiculous
 
2013-05-17 01:59:20 PM  
NostroZ asked me:

? Are you a southern racist who believes that Jews should NOT have been allowed to vote before the blacks ?

NO. I'm a southern antiracist who believes there should never have been slavery here and that all Americans including blacks & Jews should always have been able to vote.


? Do you think it's a Jewish conspiracy that Obama's cousin-in-law is Jewish ?

NO. Where did THAT idea come from? Outer space?

I don't think toilet paper was a Jewish plot either.

? Do you honestly think that without Israel the Arab world would welcome the US empire ?

NO. But they don't like Israel already, and having Israel join NATO or the USA as a state would stop the Israeli government from trying to drag the USA into its regional wars as they have since the Suez crisis of 1956. (Albeit it then it was Israel who attacked a US ship directly: before you ask if that's a Nazi-tinfoil idea look it up; surely you can use Google & Wikipedia as well as I do?)

Grow a sense of humor, okay? Not everybody who can try to be "ironic" without dragging in a still from a blockbuster movie wants to shove every Jew straight1 into the ovens. Sheesh.


1 Ya gotta kill 'em before ya bake 'em. It's, like, Noahide, d00d. <- SILLY JOKE
 
2013-05-17 01:59:38 PM  
Regardless of what we should do in Syria (I think we should stay the hell out), this seems like Russia is becoming unhinged.  If a Russian-built missile hits a US ship, Russia stands to lose more than the US.  Russia needs US cooperation than the reverse.  And I wouldn't put it past Assad to sell the missiles, if he thought that would benefit him.  So now someone else might hit a US ship, like maybe Iran, in the Persian Gulf, and Russia will not come out of that looking good at all.  International oil trade severely disrupted, and whom does everyone blame?  Even countries that are generally hostile to the US know who is guarding the sea routes in the Persian Gulf.

So this is a fairly blunt indirect military provocation by Russia that might carry global repercussions.  Putin is swinging his big dick around; he might want to be careful, he might put his own eye out.
 
2013-05-17 02:14:05 PM  
If you're blue and you don't know where to go to / Why don't you go where fashion sits? Putin is a dick.
 
2013-05-17 02:21:40 PM  
Isn't destroying your enemy's supply line a legitimate wartime tactic?
 
2013-05-17 02:31:22 PM  

NostroZ: Maybe if we have a good excuse like we did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki...  you know, invade their country and when they fight back, just say "our losses are too great and this will be too difficult to do conventionally... nuke em!  Nuke em today... Nuke em tomorrow... and tell them WE'LL KEEP NUKING THEM EVERY DAY AFTER"

That's how you become a world power

/Somewhat serious


Despite what the joke from Animal House says, it actually wasn't the Germans who invaded Pearl Harbor. Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened because Japan violated the "Don't start nothing/won't be nothing" doctrine.
 
2013-05-17 02:41:14 PM  

Bontesla: Ned Stark: Bontesla: Ned Stark: Bontesla: PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.

As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.

Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Go be "the parent" if you care so goddamn much.

Have you seen me? I'm not particularly convincing.

Whether or not you WANT to intervene is pointless. The questions that are significant?

1). What's best for our nation? Do we share ownership or responsibility for this war?
2). If intervention is best - what's the most effective way to intervene with the least amount of money and American casualties?

To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd. We, as a nation, have to answer these questions. The Fark Armchair Brigade doesn't own exclusive rights to this decision.

You've buried a whole host of questions into that #1.

And, no it isn't a hard question. The US no cause or reason to kill a bunch of Syrians. So, the US shouldn't kill a bunch of Syrians. It is an astoundingly simple calculus. Quit atoning your hands over it

There are a whole lot of questions in number one hence it's a difficult one to answer.

You're also assuming a lot of premises in your conclusion.


Which ones are those?
 
2013-05-17 02:42:46 PM  

Kibbler: If a Russian-built missile hits a US ship, Russia stands to lose more than the US.


We have fought against other countries who used weapons made by Russian, Chinese, and other countries, and that did not draw us into greater conflict with the countries who supplied those weapons. If anything, this would give us a chance to test our shipboard anti-missile systems against Russian missiles, something we otherwise wouldn't be able to do under normal circumstances. The only way we'd have an issue with Russia regarding these anti-ship weapons being used against us is if they were launched from a Russian ship or by Russian troops. The UN may not like that Russia sold those weapons to Syria, and we'll take a hard line about it, I'm sure, but in the end it'll be Syria who takes the brunt of the blowback, should they end up being fired at our Naval forces.
 
2013-05-17 02:49:29 PM  
Private_Citizen:

Who ever wins, it's almost assured they will hate the west. Since they have chemical weapons, and are working on worse, we need to "nip it in the bud." So....
Nuke em from space. It's the only way to be sure.
We kill them to save them.
/Definitely not serious.


OTOH it would solve the problem. But we'd either have to nuke Israel at the same time or nuke all Israel's other regional enemies at the same time; the first option is quick & easy but anti-semitic, while the second leaves the problem of fallout and how to rescue our allies from our attempt to save them. (Does anybody want a bunch of 12' glow-in-the-dark pissed-off Jews making trouble? Fercrissake tatsuma is bad enough.)
 
2013-05-17 02:49:39 PM  

Bontesla: Whether or not you WANT to intervene is pointless. The questions that are significant?

1). What's best for our nation? Do we share ownership or responsibility for this war?
2). If intervention is best - what's the most effective way to intervene with the least amount of money and American casualties?


1) Do we deserve sovereignty if we refuse to recognize theirs?

To pretend that there are easy answers to these questions is absurd. We, as a nation, have to answer these questions. The Fark Armchair Brigade doesn't own exclusive rights to this decision.


FTFY

Haul your own dumb ass over there and strap on a suicide vest if you want to join in. Leave the rest of us out of it. The only thing we would get out of intervening would be a pain in our ass in 20 years. Fark them all. We should let them kill each other.
 
2013-05-17 02:51:39 PM  

NostroZ: Private_Citizen:

Who ever wins, it's almost assured they will hate the west. Since they have chemical weapons, and are working on worse, we need to "nip it in the bud." So....
Nuke em from space. It's the only way to be sure.

We kill them to save them.

/Definitely not serious.

Definitely NOT helping.

Since the reality of the view you espouse means that whoever survives your Middle-Eastern holocaust will have so much vengeance in their heart they will destroy you and the world with it.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
2013-05-17 02:56:56 PM  
MmmmBacon:

So we should just unleash Israel and park ships off of their coast, telling the rest of the ME that reprisals against Israel will not be tolerated.

So Israel is a US puppet? Have you told them?
 
2013-05-17 02:59:45 PM  
Tatsuma:

kbronsito: Same would probably happen if NATO planes conducted a series of raids from bases in Turkey

Except that if this happened, bombs would start exploding all over Turkey like they did a few days ago, and Turkey would massively push for NATO boots on the ground, and it'd be hard to argue against it. They very well might say 'Intervene or we're out'.


What's wrong with that? Ask the Republican Party: NATO is supposed to be a Judeo-Christian alliance against the forces of Satan.
 
2013-05-17 03:01:06 PM  
But the US has a God-given responsibility to spread our "Democracy" to all of the oil-producing nations of the world.  OK, I can't say that with a straight face.

If anything, Russia has been extremely patient with the US farce of "War on Terror" and is now letting the US know that it is overplaying it's hand.  Think of how the US would react if Russia was threatening to invade Canada or Mexico?  The US will not call their bluff as an escalation will seriously disrupt oil production and shipments in the area.  Russia doesn't really care much as they have more than enough oil of their own.
 
2013-05-17 03:25:50 PM  
Tatsuma:

Al-Nusra is Al-Qaeda and they are absolutely a threat to Europe and America, not Israel at all, in fact.

Did you tell THEM that? They're against the USA and "the West" in the first place because they see Israel as part of "us" -- whether the USA is ZOG or Israel is an American puppet satrapy depends on what they had for lunch.

They hit "the West" because Israel is more militarized and less democratic so we're a softer target, but if that broad tendency were allowed a wish of making Israel vanish and being in peace with "the West" from then on there would be a big factional push to go for it. It might even start an Islamist vs. Islamist "civil war," more or less an "every faction for itself" melee. You couldn't even make it Sunni vs. shiate or ultra-religious vs. semi-secularist without a lot of squinting.

Not that I think disappearing Israel is a practical idea: the Bible-thumping pro-Zionist Republican anti-semites would never go for it.

But anyway. Their anti-"Western"strategy is to make "us" call off Israel somehow as much as to make us leave the dar-al-Islam alone. And if Israel had never happened they'd view "the West" as a source of dollars for their raw materials, albeit a bunch of filthy infidels (like, oh, the Russians, N. Koreans and "Red" Chinese). The establishment of the Zionist Jewish Israel was a disaster for the USA that we're still reeling from, and if it weren't for "the Jewish lobby" we'd have written them off decades ago.

Surely you're aware that Israel could not have won in 1973 without strong help from the Nixon-Kissinger clique, despite what the US & Israeli governments publicly said at the time, and that "we" wouldn't have bothered if there weren't a Cold War going on. You have noticed that the USA is less vociferously pro-Israel since the Berlin Wall came down, right?

By the way, Stalin was Israel's first superpower backer, before his tertiary syphilis and/or series of small strokes did too much damage. It's too bad the Soviets were harder to play than Truman's White House.
 
2013-05-17 03:38:44 PM  
static.guim.co.uk

Payback is a biatch.
 
2013-05-17 03:54:06 PM  

The One True TheDavid: The USA is as likely to be hit by any outside force's chemical weapons as I am to be elected Lubavitcher rebbe.


I heard similar things in the years before 9/11. "Those things can't happen here! Nobody with capability could possibly hate us that much!"

I see that we've circled right back around into the denial and complacency of believing that America is somehow 'above the fray.'

The One True TheDavid: The closest we'll ever get is some US-resident or even citizen frat-boy types


Ah - you're one of the ones who jumps into Breaking News threads early to note that the culprit was "probably a Teabagger."
 
2013-05-17 04:02:03 PM  
They sold Syria the missiles knowing the state of affairs, so send Putin a bill for whatever damage is done by those missiles and demand compensation.

/...or was that UN arms treaty a crock of shiat after all?
 
2013-05-17 04:48:10 PM  

Kibbler: I wouldn't put it past Assad to sell the missiles, if he thought that would benefit him.


I'd bet my last dollar that these are for trading to Iran for other munitions.

Although, since Syria is Iran's path to the sea, maybe they'll just hold onto them until the Iranians are ready to head out on the water.
 
2013-05-17 04:56:02 PM  
BigNumber12:

The One True TheDavid: The closest we'll ever get is some US-resident or even citizen frat-boy types

Ah - you're one of the ones who jumps into Breaking News threads early to note that the culprit was "probably a Teabagger."


Um, no. That should be made clear from the rest of that sentence, the part you cut out, to wit:

"The closest we'll ever get is some US-resident or even citizen frat-boy types (albeit perhaps of the Islamic persuasion, as were the Tsarnaevs) playing around with bottles of bleach."

1) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger, surviving brother, is a naturalized US citizen; Tamerlan, the older, dead one, had a harder time of that.

2) as for "frat-boy type," look at their photos, especially the younger one.

static.guim.co.uk

Big baseball cap on backwards, sarcastic smirk, looks like he might be stoned: very broadly, "a frat-boy type." (You know, like Willie Nelson is "a biker type.") If you'd lived in several college towns for decades like I have you'd probably know what I meant without seeing a photo.

You do know there are "non-white" fraternities, at least black and east Asian ("Oriental," as opposed to Hindustani or Iranian) ones, don't you? And that the Tsarnaevs look as white as any Sicilian, Greek or Jew, i.e. not Chinese, Mayan or Bantu?

And one thing I can say for them Tsarnaev bothers is they most likely hated the Teabaggers as much as I do.

In short, your st00pid dishonesty -- or lack of reading comprehension, whichever is more charitable -- might get you Ignored. You better watch that shiat.
 
2013-05-17 06:24:15 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: Tatsuma: It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Just to be clear... you are not suggesting that the U.S. military needs to get involved in Syria, or else Al-Nusra is going to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States of America, killing lots of U.S. citizens, right?

Because if you are suggesting that, please piss off.


That appears to be the gist of it, yes.
 
2013-05-17 06:37:03 PM  

Tatsuma: kbronsito: couldn't we just bomb all suspected chemical weapon storage sites in Syria?

Well that in itself would require Western intervention, but yes it's most likely the best short-term situation. We'd probably have to destroy a whole lot of government labs associated with research and kill a whole bunch of scientists as well. It's not like this stuff will not be lying around (or cowering under bed) once the rebels take over.

kbronsito: Same would probably happen if NATO planes conducted a series of raids from bases in Turkey

Except that if this happened, bombs would start exploding all over Turkey like they did a few days ago, and Turkey would massively push for NATO boots on the ground, and it'd be hard to argue against it. They very well might say 'Intervene or we're out'.

kbronsito: (Can chemical weapons' sites be bombed withou risking massive contamination... or is that not possible?)

For the most part, absolutely


This sounds pretty unpleasant for anyone downwind. What are the wind patterns in that part of the world?
 
2013-05-17 06:51:00 PM  
Wouldn't it be instant karma if a Russian ship off Syria suddenly sank because of a Russian made anti-ship missile fired from Syria?  Or even better, a Chinese made anti-ship missile?  Or a Chinese made torpedo, like the kind that sank the Cheonan?
 
2013-05-17 08:01:49 PM  

Evil High Priest: This sounds pretty unpleasant for anyone downwind. What are the wind patterns in that part of the world?


Between the heat of the explosion and the dispersion from the wind, people from the surrounding area should be fine.
 
2013-05-17 09:31:40 PM  
Obama vs. Putin would be like a retarded boy vs. Superman.

/Pretty sure Obama would be sub omega male.
 
2013-05-17 10:37:17 PM  

The One True TheDavid: might get you Ignored


If that will help, then you absolutely should.
 
2013-05-17 10:40:35 PM  

The One True TheDavid: Um, no. That should be made clear from the rest of that sentence, the part you cut out, to wit:

"The closest we'll ever get is some US-resident or even citizen frat-boy types (albeit perhaps of the Islamic persuasion, as were the Tsarnaevs) playing around with bottles of bleach."

1) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger, surviving brother, is a naturalized US citizen; Tamerlan, the older, dead one, had a harder time of that.

2) as for "frat-boy type," look at their photos, especially the younger one.

Big baseball cap on backwards, sarcastic smirk, looks like he might be stoned: very broadly, "a frat-boy type." (You know, like Willie Nelson is "a biker type.") If you'd lived in several college towns for decades like I have you'd probably know what I meant without seeing a photo.

You do know there are "non-white" fraternities, at least black and east Asian ("Oriental," as opposed to Hindustani or Iranian) ones, don't you? And that the Tsarnaevs look as white as any Sicilian, Greek or Jew, i.e. not Chinese, Mayan or Bantu?

And one thing I can say for them Tsarnaev bothers is they most likely hated the Teabaggers as much as I do.



I'm reading this after a few drinks, but I'm pretty sure that you've had even more than I have.

The One True TheDavid: You better watch that shiat.


Oooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2013-05-18 12:18:49 AM  

The One True TheDavid: By the way, Stalin was Israel's first superpower backer, before his tertiary syphilis and/or series of small strokes did too much damage. It's too bad the Soviets were harder to play than Truman's White House.


What happened after and/or?
 
2013-05-18 05:11:37 PM  

LewDux: The One True TheDavid:

By the way, Stalin was Israel's first superpower backer, before his tertiary syphilis and/or series of small strokes did too much damage. It's too bad the Soviets were harder to play than Truman's White House.

What happened after and/or?


To quote the Wikipedia article on Stalin and antisemitism:

Though communist leaders including Joseph Stalin publicly denounced antisemitism, instances of antisemitism on Stalin's part have been witnessed by contemporaries and documented by historical sources.
The theory I favor is that Stalin, who in the first place never had any great love for any Jew unless it got him something, wanted credit for "saving the Jews" and for Israel to be a client state, but when Israel turned to "the West" instead Iosif Vissarionovich got very upset and decided to "punish" the Jews under his control. First he turned on the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, then came the alleged Doctor's Plot.


A card-carrying member of the CPUSA once to me that he admired Stalin as a great leader who beat Hitler (that's pretty much true, he threw all the more or less soldierly Soviet men he could find at the Germans) but who made some "grave mistakes" that should nevertheless be kept in the perspective of how great a leader he nevertheless was. Something like that.

I say he was a great leader because he killed off the competition and that Stalin and Mao, who each killed at least as many people as Hitler (including soldiers on both sides of WW2), are prime examples of what true communists should NOT be. And that any dictator with a damn near limitless supply of military-age men could have beat the Nazis like Stalin did, with wave after wave after wave of attacks: the Axis pretty much ran way too low in soldiers to keep going, while Stalin was determined to beat Hitler if it took him every last Soviet citizen to do it. (Jilted butt-buddies can get that way, you know.)

But anyway.
 
Displayed 172 of 172 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






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