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  
•       •       •

7007 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 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 23 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 »






Report