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.

(Bloomberg)   Hey Obama, remember how you wanted to help the Syrian rebels? Might want to read this first   (bloomberg.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Syrians, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Muhammad Qatta, summary execution, National Coalition Party, Aleppo, The Woman-Identified Woman, Daraa  
•       •       •

1749 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2013 at 7:54 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-12 07:52:32 AM  
Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?
 
2013-06-12 07:55:33 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


As for correctness, I dunno, but he always winds up on the right each time he compromises.
 
2013-06-12 07:57:44 AM  
I think Obama was the one resisting giving them weapons.
 
2013-06-12 08:03:39 AM  
I think this about covers it.

"The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide weapons to the disparate opposition, fearing that they will fall into the wrong hands in a volatile region. McCain said he discussed what types of weapons the rebels need and whether they could ensure their control.

"I'm confident that they could get the weapons into the right hands and there's no doubt that they need some kind of capability to reverse the battlefield situation, which right now is in favor of Assad," McCain said."
 
2013-06-12 08:12:58 AM  
I'm pretty sure Obama has only been on the fence at the very most--McCain is the one who is all gung ho about it--and I'm also pretty sure this type of thing is exactly why Obama hasn't been all for it.
 
2013-06-12 08:16:15 AM  

bison0329: I think this about covers it.

"The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide weapons to the disparate opposition, fearing that they will fall into the wrong hands in a volatile region. McCain said he discussed what types of weapons the rebels need and whether they could ensure their control.

"I'm confident that they could get the weapons into the right hands and there's no doubt that they need some kind of capability to reverse the battlefield situation, which right now is in favor of Assad," McCain said."


Came here to say this. Leaving satisfied.
/Is anyone else bothered by the fact that McCain stood a probably chance of becoming president?
//Not a great chance, but it wasn't out of the realm of the possible
 
2013-06-12 08:17:08 AM  

TimonC346: I'm pretty sure Obama has only been on the fence at the very most--McCain is the one who is all gung ho about it--and I'm also pretty sure this type of thing is exactly why Obama hasn't been all for it.


Correct. Anyone who's not a moron knows that the "Syrian Rebels" are a diverse group including a lot of foreign islamists who are just straight up shiatty. That's why everyone's been suuuper picky and careful about taking action and especially arming them.
 
2013-06-12 08:17:10 AM  

EyeballKid: jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?

As for correctness, I dunno, but he always winds up on the right each time he compromises.


Ba dum bum bssh.

In all fairness, it would be very difficult to be on the right side for *anyone* in this conflict.  Supposedly, you have al-Qaeda helping one or more of the rebel factions.  And supposedly Hezbollah are on Assad's side.  Which group of terrorists do you help?  And both sides, ignoring any external governmental or organizational influence, have committed atrocities.

I don't see there being any way of winning this one.
 
2013-06-12 08:17:40 AM  
Um, hasn't the Obama administration been the ones slow-playing arming the Syrian rebels over just these sort of concerns? I swear conservatives have shorter memories than meth-addled goldfish.
 
2013-06-12 08:21:02 AM  
Both sides are bad so vote Salafi?
 
2013-06-12 08:23:44 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


Have you EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?
 
2013-06-12 08:24:16 AM  

VictoryCabal: Um, hasn't the Obama administration been the ones slow-playing arming the Syrian rebels over just these sort of concerns? I swear conservatives have shorter memories than meth-addled goldfish.


It's pure political theater.  The Republicans know this is a no-win scenario, so they have absolute freedom to criticize any  action Obama take's, even if the actions are in direct opposition.  Arm the rebels=Obama loves terrorist.  Don't arm the rebels=Obama loves bloodthirsty, genocidal dictators.
 
2013-06-12 08:24:21 AM  

InvertedB: jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?

Have you EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


Politics?
 
2013-06-12 08:25:58 AM  

RyogaM: Arm the rebels=Obama loves terrorist. Don't arm the rebels=Obama loves bloodthirsty, genocidal dictators.


I know Republicans will no doubt go with this tact, given that Republicans have been shown to love both terrorists and bloodthirsty, genocidal dictators.


/Country First
 
2013-06-12 08:33:14 AM  
A large number of the "rebels" are private armies of one or another of the six-ish most powerful families. It's very much like central & south American countries that are dominated by the same 1% and the baton is passed around between the families.
 
2013-06-12 08:33:47 AM  

EyeballKid: RyogaM: Arm the rebels=Obama loves terrorist. Don't arm the rebels=Obama loves bloodthirsty, genocidal dictators.

I know Republicans will no doubt go with this tact, given that Republicans have been shown to love both terrorists and bloodthirsty, genocidal dictators.


/Country First


But all dictators are left-wing.  All my right-wing friends say so.
 
2013-06-12 08:35:17 AM  

bison0329: I think this about covers it.

"The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide weapons to the disparate opposition, fearing that they will fall into the wrong hands in a volatile region. McCain said he discussed what types of weapons the rebels need and whether they could ensure their control.

"I'm confident that they could get the weapons into the right hands and there's no doubt that they need some kind of capability to reverse the battlefield situation, which right now is in favor of Assad," McCain said."


This.  In fact, IIRC Obama has pretty much been personally insisting on NOT arming the Syrian rebels, against the advice of almost his entire foreign policy team.  So I'm not sure where subby or jwp is coming from.

//well, I can guess jwp is coming from trolling or hatin' on Obama.
 
2013-06-12 08:44:25 AM  

bison0329: I think this about covers it.

"The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide weapons to the disparate opposition, fearing that they will fall into the wrong hands in a volatile region. McCain said he discussed what types of weapons the rebels need and whether they could ensure their control.

"I'm confident that they could get the weapons into the right hands and there's no doubt that they need some kind of capability to reverse the battlefield situation, which right now is in favor of Assad," McCain said."


Has McCain ever been on the right side of anything?

/probably, but not on this
 
2013-06-12 08:45:16 AM  
Hey neocon chickenhawks salivating at the prospect of billion dollar no-bid contracts in another Hooray for America Murder Party, this is why you should grab a rifle and go or STFU.
 
2013-06-12 08:45:20 AM  
Woop, better pack it in guys. 1% of your army are religious nutbags.


/yawn
/don't run your mouth to men with guns in a country torn apart by a brutal civil war
/they might just shoot you
/slashy
 
2013-06-12 09:03:49 AM  
I'm bored, I might make today "Troll McCain on Twitter" day.... at least the people who read shiat to him might get a chuckle.
 
2013-06-12 09:04:11 AM  
You misspelled "McCain," subtroll.

Also, what's the worst that could happen? If only there were some sort of historical events where the US armed rebels against their government. Oh well, I'm sure it will work out fine.
 
2013-06-12 09:08:37 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


He was on the right side of your mom when I was on her left.
 
2013-06-12 09:26:42 AM  
well, gee, i guess obama was right not to arm the rebels without any questions asked.

syria is a clusterfark right now and a humanitarian disaster. but both sides are bad. so, short of going in with a half a million UN troops, what else is there? a no-fly zone, perhaps.
 
2013-06-12 09:28:10 AM  

FlashHarry: well, gee, i guess obama was right not to arm the rebels without any questions asked.

syria is a clusterfark right now and a humanitarian disaster. but both sides are bad. so, short of going in with a half a million UN troops, what else is there? a no-fly zone, perhaps.


Coincidentally Russia has been selling them air defense systems.
 
2013-06-12 09:40:30 AM  

LasersHurt: Coincidentally Russia has been selling them air defense systems.


yeah, i saw that. farking putin, man.
 
2013-06-12 09:49:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I think Obama was the one resisting giving them weapons.


Exactly.  Why isn't this "Hey, McCain"?
 
2013-06-12 10:24:06 AM  

2wolves: A large number of the "rebels" are private armies of one or another of the six-ish most powerful families. It's very much like central & south American countries that are dominated by the same 1% and the baton is passed around between the families.


Syria falling into warlordism is totally plausible to me. Iraq would be the same way if we had just invaded, killed Saddam, and left. Afghanistan was that way before we invaded it. All we did during occupation was set the warlords up with ministry posts. Then they learned it's easier to control people through a country's police force and finances than raising a private army to do it.
 
2013-06-12 10:26:42 AM  
Hey Obama McCain, remember how you wanted to help the Syrian rebels? Might want to read this first.
FTFY
 
2013-06-12 12:12:53 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


My Lord, but you are one dense individual.
 
2013-06-12 12:30:04 PM  
On the plus side, we've caused Christians to flee Syria in the tens of thousands. As I've been told on Fark, once you get rid of them, only good things will happen.

TimonC346: I'm pretty sure Obama has only been on the fence at the very most--McCain is the one who is all gung ho about it--and I'm also pretty sure this type of thing is exactly why Obama hasn't been all for it.


And as we all know, the president is powerless to do anything.

Most Republicans aren't keen on arming Syrians while some are and Obama arms them. Republicans are eager to arm and support Iranian protestors and Obama holds the line. Please, the guy is happily arming Syrians while concern trolling. It's obvious from Pluto.
 
2013-06-12 12:30:12 PM  

xanadian: EyeballKid: jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?

As for correctness, I dunno, but he always winds up on the right each time he compromises.

Ba dum bum bssh.

In all fairness, it would be very difficult to be on the right side for *anyone* in this conflict.  Supposedly, you have al-Qaeda helping one or more of the rebel factions.  And supposedly Hezbollah are on Assad's side.  Which group of terrorists do you help?  And both sides, ignoring any external governmental or organizational influence, have committed atrocities.

I don't see there being any way of winning this one.


Only winning move is not to play.
 
2013-06-12 12:47:00 PM  

Arkanaut: This.  In fact, IIRC Obama has pretty much been personally insisting on NOT arming the Syrian rebels, against the advice of almost his entire foreign policy team.  So I'm not sure where subby or jwp is coming from.


David Ignatius (whose analysis is usually good on these subjects) thinks it's because he hasn't seen an action plan he likes - as in how the US will get in, get out, and be able to declare victory.  He'll do a decisive, risky move if it's for a good reason (UBL) or a series of less-risky ones (drone strikes).

Unlike Libya, the possible presence of significant air defenses means a no-fly zone is both more expensive (in a time where budgets are hurting already) and more risk.  Hell, we just provided logistics on Libya anyway - likely Obama's comfort level for not-special operations engagements.
 
2013-06-12 12:47:40 PM  

Boxcutta: You misspelled "McCain," subtroll.

Also, what's the worst that could happen? If only there were some sort of historical events where the US armed rebels against their government. Oh well, I'm sure it will work out fine.


There were no spelling errors in the title.
 
2013-06-12 01:02:35 PM  

Mrbogey: Obama arms them.


You must know something the rest of the world doesn't.
 
2013-06-12 01:36:52 PM  

RsquaredW: David Ignatius (whose analysis is usually good on these subjects) thinks it's because he hasn't seen an action plan he likes - as in how the US will get in, get out, and be able to declare victory.


My understanding is that Obama is holding back on Syria because of the problems that sprung up after the Libya intervention, when weapons that were originally sent to the rebels flooded into Niger and Mali, particularly allowing rebels in the latter to control the north of the country and declare independence.

Hell, we just provided logistics on Libya anyway

That's only true after the first month -- US aircraft were actively involved in airstrikes for the first few weeks.  I believe there was concern about exceeding the limits set in the War Powers Resolution -- I think the justification is that the "logistical" support that we were providing didn't constitute "military actions".


Dansker: Mrbogey: Obama arms them.

You must know something the rest of the world doesn't.


All his Facebook friends know it!
 
2013-06-12 03:05:14 PM  

xanadian: EyeballKid: jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?

As for correctness, I dunno, but he always winds up on the right each time he compromises.

Ba dum bum bssh.

In all fairness, it would be very difficult to be on the right side for *anyone* in this conflict.  Supposedly, you have al-Qaeda helping one or more of the rebel factions.  And supposedly Hezbollah are on Assad's side.  Which group of terrorists do you help?  And both sides, ignoring any external governmental or organizational influence, have committed atrocities.

I don't see there being any way of winning this one.


What do you mean supposedly?

I suggest you look into Hezbollah. They're not like the farking Taliban or Al-Queda.


Supposedly allied with Assad... Hey, I there's a rumour that Hitler supposedly didn't like Jews.
 
2013-06-12 03:06:01 PM  
Are these the ones that shot Doc Brown?
 
2013-06-12 03:48:49 PM  

InvertedB: jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?

Have you EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


Has he ever been right about anything, period?
 
2013-06-12 06:48:03 PM  

xanadian: EyeballKid: jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?

As for correctness, I dunno, but he always winds up on the right each time he compromises.

Ba dum bum bssh.

In all fairness, it would be very difficult to be on the right side for *anyone* in this conflict.  Supposedly, you have al-Qaeda helping one or more of the rebel factions.  And supposedly Hezbollah are on Assad's side.  Which group of terrorists do you help?  And both sides, ignoring any external governmental or organizational influence, have committed atrocities.

I don't see there being any way of winning this one.


That's the whole point - we should've stayed out of it, and directed our anger through the U.N., which has condemned the human rights violations of both the rebel and government participants. Instead, we saw an opportunity to overthrow Assad, and pushed our support for the rebels. We provided everything but direct military assistance, and now we're regretting the fact that we basically backed the wrong side in this fight.

We're not against terrorism - terrorism is our pretext for backing actions in the region that support our interests. We'll happily support terrorists if they accomplish our goals. Only when it gets dirty, when it looks like our erstwhile allies are going to make us look bad, do we start mumbling & shuffling for the door. That's what's happening here. We knew, long before we started sliding money and training at them, that our "rebels" were a loose confederation of various groups, including religious extremists, but, hey, they were doing what we wanted them to do.

Remember, before Osama bin Laden was Public Enemy #1, he was our mujahadeen buddy in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets with our weapons, our money, and our praise. Make no mistake - we'll happily support "freedom fighters" if they're fighting for our freedom.
 
2013-06-12 08:22:18 PM  
At the risk of sounding like Pam Gellar, let the savages (Islamicists, Jews, Coptics) fight it out amongst themselves. Just constrain it to the borders of that country please.

Seriously, it's farking 2013. I don't give a fark about your supposed culture if you use religion as a reason to justify murder. Mr. Scott Lively I'm also looking at your fat face as well.
 
2013-06-12 08:48:36 PM  
"WHY ISN'T OBAMA DOING ANYTHING AGAINST SYRIA'S MURDEROUS GOVERNMENT? WORST PRESIDENT EVER!"
"WHY IS OBAMA ARMING THE TURRISTS! WORST PRESIDENT EVER!"
 
2013-06-12 08:56:28 PM  
Wow I'm so surprised that there no "good guys" in the Middle East?! Including us for that matter. Find an alternative to Middle East oil and get the fark out of that shiat hole. Don't go back until they grow out of  the dark out ages.
 
2013-06-12 09:44:48 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Has Obama EVER been on the right side of ANYTHING?


The FarkLibtards hope not.
 
2013-06-13 03:51:32 PM  
Who is confusing Obama with John McCain?
 
Displayed 45 of 45 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