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 173
    More: Scary, anti-ship missile, Russia, Bashar, Aleppo, Syrian refugees, Erdogan, Foreign Secretary, peaceful protest  
•       •       •

7010 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2013 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 01:25:04 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.


+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. .
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

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