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.

(Fox News)   You know who else advocated attacking a country because they used WMDs on their own people?   (foxnews.com) divider line 485
    More: News, Secretary of State John Kerry, WMDs, chemical weapons, Buck McKeon, military plans, White House Press Secretary  
•       •       •

19522 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 4:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 10:49:30 PM  

ciberido: Daedalus27: Effects are seemingly overlooked and only the means of causing death are focused on.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how they are dying whether it is incinerated in a nuclear blast, poisoned by gas, or blown up in a artillery barrage, your just as dead either way.

So if the Ciberido Liberation Front were to kidnap you and decree your execution for crimes against Ciberidism, and the executioner gave you the choice of being shot in the head or burned at the stake, you'd just shrug and say, "Doesn't matter to me!  I'm just as dead either way.  Kill me any way you like."

And you think every single person who's ever died in war feels the same way, right?


Would it matter to me personally, sure it would.  I would like to die at home in bed asleep and surrounded by extremely attractive members of the opposite sex that I just had carnal relations with multiple times if I had my choice. Of course there are more peaceful ways to die compared to others.  However is the UN going to hold a special session if I am shot in the head or burned at the stake, probably not.  I am one person of a majoritarian group who can't be discriminated against or harmed in a biased manner.

However from a policy and strategy perspective, why are these hundreds/thousands of deaths more important and worthy of intervention compared to the preceding hundred thousand deaths due to conventional military violence.  Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by rockets or aircraft have been occurring for months resulting in thousands of deaths with profound silence. If the choice is between bleeding out over several hours from a gut shot or shrapnel wound vs. a minute or two of poison gas shutting down my body, I might choose the poison gas.  I just would like to know why we are going to put more blood and treasure at risk in a conflict that has been going on for years killing tens of thousands every few months just because a few thousand more were killed.  If it wasn't worthy of our sacrifice before, why is it magically worth the sacrifice now?
 
2013-08-26 10:50:12 PM  

Radioactive Ass: omnibus_necanda_sunt: THERE ARE FARKING SECULAR REBELS.

DOING NOTHING IS THE BEST WAY TO HELP AL QAEDA.

No. Bombing Assad is the best way to help AQ. The secular rebels should have refused to be involved with AQ in any way and let that be known from the start. History shows us again and again that allowing poisonous elements into an organization of any type eventually leads to that poison taking over the organization. Unless the secular rebels are going to literally kill the AQ elements in their ranks after they win then no matter what I cannot support them, and I don't see that happening. I was behind the rebels until AQ joined them, then I decided that letting Assad be Assad was the better choice in the long run.



I agree completely with what you say, but I really need to get some new initials.

:-(
 
2013-08-26 10:53:04 PM  
I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."
 
2013-08-26 10:55:12 PM  
Bill Brasky?
 
2013-08-26 10:57:08 PM  
May we please sit this one out? Both sides are people not to get involved with. If its that bad, let the UN make that call. Also, the last line FTA:

"One official suggested it is unlikely the U.S. will launch any strike while U.N. inspectors remain on the ground, for fear they could be taken hostage."

Really author? That's almost written with an implied *wink*wink*.
 
2013-08-26 10:57:52 PM  

Daedalus27: ciberido: Daedalus27: Effects are seemingly overlooked and only the means of causing death are focused on.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how they are dying whether it is incinerated in a nuclear blast, poisoned by gas, or blown up in a artillery barrage, your just as dead either way.

So if the Ciberido Liberation Front were to kidnap you and decree your execution for crimes against Ciberidism, and the executioner gave you the choice of being shot in the head or burned at the stake, you'd just shrug and say, "Doesn't matter to me!  I'm just as dead either way.  Kill me any way you like."

And you think every single person who's ever died in war feels the same way, right?

Would it matter to me personally, sure it would.  I would like to die at home in bed asleep and surrounded by extremely attractive members of the opposite sex that I just had carnal relations with multiple times if I had my choice. Of course there are more peaceful ways to die compared to others.  However is the UN going to hold a special session if I am shot in the head or burned at the stake, probably not.  I am one person of a majoritarian group who can't be discriminated against or harmed in a biased manner.

However from a policy and strategy perspective, why are these hundreds/thousands of deaths more important and worthy of intervention compared to the preceding hundred thousand deaths due to conventional military violence.  Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by rockets or aircraft have been occurring for months resulting in thousands of deaths with profound silence. If the choice is between bleeding out over several hours from a gut shot or shrapnel wound vs. a minute or two of poison gas shutting down my body, I might choose the poison gas.  I just would like to know why we are going to put more blood and treasure at risk in a conflict that has been going on for years killing tens of thousands every few months just because a few thousand more were killed.  If it wasn't worthy of our ...


Because it was worthy, but realpolitik got in the way. Shame on Putin. Not that the man is capable of it.
 
2013-08-26 10:57:55 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: It's an unfortunate reality. Syria is too big a mess to just let it sit.

It's like diarrhea in the living room. Someone has to clean it up. Nobody wants to get near it, but it isn't going to disappear all by itself, and it'd be pretty childish to just let a case of beer shiats drive you out of your own living room.

I oppose military action in Iran with all my heart. But Syria is different. Syria is madness and malevolence and pain, and its spread won't be stopped by invisible lines on maps.

On top of that, Syria would be far more accessible than Iran, given it sits on the Mediterranean. We wouldn't be stuck demining Hormuz or negotiating with Kyrgyzstan just to ship in the MREs.

I don't feel American boots on the ground or a long taxpayer-funded nation-building scheme should be necessary. Syria is so close to Europe that they will be essentially forced to chip in, at least diplomatically.

This will be harder than Libya, but equally necessary, if not moreso. And infinitely easier than a quixotic foray into Iran.


There is zero chance the US can our should do anything between diddly and shiat unless the UN assembles an international peacekeeping deal along the lines of the coalition during the Bosnia conflict. The fact that Russia won't allow the UN to make that choice means it is completely in their hands.

We should tell Russia the blood is on them and good luck with the spillover terrorism - not that they're not already used to it from the Chechnya experience. They need to get out of the way or deal with it themselves. If Obama pulls a GW Bush, then he's no better than Bush.

Fundamentally, we cannot keep doing this everywhere. We just can't. I know it is terrible in Syria, but we also have a society to maintain and I don't think we can keep asking our population to die in the Middle East. Give the machine a break and GTFO of Afghanistan already.
 
2013-08-26 11:02:42 PM  

Popular Opinion: i don't think i am the one in denial.
we helped build the oil infrastructure that funded his army. the us adminstrations are as culpable for the atrocities under that regime as anyone. the higher ups knew exactly what they were doing and traded lives for cheap oil and the upper hand over the soviets in the region.
the fact that we gave direct intel to saddam about iranian troop buildups that helped iraq survive (using preemptive chemical attacks) says as much as anything, given that we knew what he was going to do when we told him.


I was speaking of direct material support which was the claim being made and nothing else. From a pure standpoint in who gave who what to shoot we were a small player by far in comparison. Hell we armed the Saudis a 1000% more than Iraq.

As to the Iran\Iraq war we had good reasons to not like Iran (and to be fair they had the same about us) so helping Iraq with intel isn't really a big deal within that context. As tothe US knowing that they were going to use chemical weapons as a direct result of that intel you need to cite that. As I recall the US reaction was not favorable at all when it happened.

TuteTibiImperes: Not all of the rebels are Al Qaeda. Once Assad is gone if fanatical Muslims and Al Qaeda manage to take control there's nothing stopping us from going back to bomb them as well.


I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocation to US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.
 
2013-08-26 11:05:39 PM  

Darkrover2: Want to fix Syria, Rwanda, Mali, etc?

Close the West to immigration...how can the undeveloped world find it's patriots if everyone that want liberty and justice flees their homelands for 'the better life in the West'?

If everyone that wants freedom and opportunity flees to the US and Europe, then every country that doesn't have a strong culture and effective national institutions will simply become Syria or Rwanda.

Like Afghanistan...and letting that little teapot steep worked out well, did it not?


Afghanastan was just fine until Russia invaded it and the US decided to arm the rebels.
 
2013-08-26 11:05:42 PM  

darth_badger: US wars are started with false flags and this will be the next one. This will keep people employed in America and is good for the military industrial complex.


The last two didn't prevent the great recession.
 
2013-08-26 11:06:09 PM  
It is possible that this is a just moment in which to act. It is possible that all of the theories put forth here about distraction are bullshiat. It is possible that you are wrong and the powers that be are right.
 
2013-08-26 11:07:38 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."


the american people, or the government, is not responsible for protecting these people or being their saviors.
ultimately, they must decide their own collective fate.
personally, i am tired of the back and forth...get out, get in, get out, get in. get out, get in.
we're out. let's stay out.

fool us once, shame on you, fool us five times, we must be fricking idiots.
 
2013-08-26 11:10:13 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."


Here's the thing. In this situation the only way of stopping people from dying is by making other people die and possibly killing some of the people that you are trying to save. It's a shiat sammich no matter how you look at it and it's a good reason to just stay out of it altogether.
 
2013-08-26 11:12:30 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."


To expand on that...

Even if there are several terrible things going on in the world at once and the only one you can get people to care about also happens to be on the shiatlist of some creepy manipulative bastards you despise, it doesn't make it wrong to try to help ameliorate the situation.
 
2013-08-26 11:15:01 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: i don't think i am the one in denial.
we helped build the oil infrastructure that funded his army. the us adminstrations are as culpable for the atrocities under that regime as anyone. the higher ups knew exactly what they were doing and traded lives for cheap oil and the upper hand over the soviets in the region.
the fact that we gave direct intel to saddam about iranian troop buildups that helped iraq survive (using preemptive chemical attacks) says as much as anything, given that we knew what he was going to do when we told him.

I was speaking of direct material support which was the claim being made and nothing else. From a pure standpoint in who gave who what to shoot we were a small player by far in comparison. Hell we armed the Saudis a 1000% more than Iraq.

As to the Iran\Iraq war we had good reasons to not like Iran (and to be fair they had the same about us) so helping Iraq with intel isn't really a big deal within that context. As tothe US knowing that they were going to use chemical weapons as a direct result of that intel you need to cite that. As I recall the US reaction was not favorable at all when it happened

.

there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran
 
2013-08-26 11:17:28 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Even if there are several terrible things going on in the world at once and the only one you can get people to care about also happens to be on the shiatlist of some creepy manipulative bastards you despise, it doesn't make it wrong to try to help ameliorate the situation.


Not an untrue statement by itself... but... the US getting involved will not de-esacalate the situation at all. It would do the exact opposite. This alone is a good reason to not get involved.
 
2013-08-26 11:17:38 PM  
At least you stupid assholes can watch your country go up in flames. The Roman Empire too way too long to collapse from their corruption.
 
2013-08-26 11:21:16 PM  

Popular Opinion: there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran


But nothing. The article claims that the US knew what Iraq would do (use chemical weapons) but gives no proof of that. In other words it's an opinion based upon hindsight.
 
2013-08-26 11:22:15 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: The Roman Empire too way too long to collapse from their corruption.


Time to slow down on the vodak, sir.
 
2013-08-26 11:32:55 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran

But nothing. The article claims that the US knew what Iraq would do (use chemical weapons) but gives no proof of that. In other words it's an opinion based upon hindsight.


deny away!
 
2013-08-26 11:34:52 PM  

Popular Opinion: Radioactive Ass: Popular Opinion: there are better links if you search but
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/08/26/cia-files-us-helped-saddam-against -i ran

But nothing. The article claims that the US knew what Iraq would do (use chemical weapons) but gives no proof of that. In other words it's an opinion based upon hindsight.

deny away!


That means you can't dig up a single quote from someone, "in the know" right?
 
2013-08-26 11:37:12 PM  
 
2013-08-26 11:41:12 PM  

Radioactive Ass: omnibus_necanda_sunt: I don't deny that stopping the fighting in Syria will take a load off Israel. I despise right-wing Israeli politics and the very existence of AIPAC, but I don't let that blind me to the fact that LETTING PEOPLE DIE when you could have stopped it is far beyond what any moral or ethical system can justify with the phrase "not my problem."

Here's the thing. In this situation the only way of stopping people from dying is by making other people die and possibly killing some of the people that you are trying to save. It's a shiat sammich no matter how you look at it and it's a good reason to just stay out of it altogether.


In this instance, we would be destroying Assad's air force. The only people dying are people in Assad's military. Don't forget that we'd be fighting an actual army this time, not a population that hates us.

That would be for the diplomatic corps to fark up later, and at that point the airplanes, helicopters, and tanks would no longer be in reach of a half-dozen factions of disorganized rebels.

You realize a possible consequence of doing nothing could be that Al-Qaeda acquires chemical weapons, planes, and tanks?

So long as youth unemployment in the middle east remains where it is, there will be no shortage of irrational young men to flock to Syria, fling themselves against Assad, and get themselves and several civilians killed in the process.

Another thing to consider: At this point the Syrian government's crimes against their own citizens has exceeded that of Iran and Egypt combined, even leaving the nerve gas aside. Assad will never reestablish peaceful rule.

Again, this does concern America. It concerns the whole world, because that's how our planet happens to be shaped, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

Ultimately, Syria (and the Middle East at large) are so important because they sit at the crossroads of three very, very different worlds, influenced by and influencing all of them. There is no escaping it, no matter how much we want to.
 
2013-08-26 11:42:40 PM  
I don't farking care. Stop spending our money funding the military complex and wars in the middle east. Who honestly thinks this shiat is ever going to stop because we send in tomahawks and carpet bombs? Who honestly does not believe that the net effect of our actions in the middle is only to create more violence at our own financial expense? Get the fark out, permanently please. You have your farking dragnet, isn't that supposed to protect us you farking money grubbing scumbags?

/my bad
 
2013-08-26 11:49:14 PM  

Radioactive Ass: I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocationto US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.


Rwanda is a shiathole next to a bunch of other shiatholes in an area of little strategic value to us.  Syria sits right next to two of our biggest allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, as well as Jordan, who we're on friendly terms with, and Saudi Arabia, which is obviously important for the global oil supply.

Plus, if bombing Assad pisses of China and Russia, all the better, we should relish the opportunity to let them know that their opinions don't dictate our actions.

The chemical weapons may be being used against his own citizens now, but what's to say that a Sarin-laden bomb or missile wouldn't be launched at Tel Aviv later down the road?  It's better to handle this quickly, let the Syrians dig out of the rubble and figure something out, and then re-evaluate about whether we need to go in again if the new regime doesn't work for our and our allies' interests.
 
2013-08-26 11:50:51 PM  

Kit Fister: ManateeGag: yeah it does. didn't you know, we have to the world's police force. any time there's some injustice in the world, we have to intervene. God forbid we let a country handle it's own problems without us telling every other nation on the planet how to run their lives.

Tell that to every case where the goddamn UN put the brunt of military action on the US.

The US is like that big, dumb kid everyone looks down on because he's "violent" until some other, smaller country or group needs him to come along and handle a problem. Neat thing is, foreign regimes can point us at someone else, plant plenty of evidence, and watch while we rush headlong towards leveling the fark out of them, all the while tacitly denouncing what we've done.

On the list of places that deserve our help, Syria's pretty goddamn far down the list, behind places like Columbia and Mexico, which we actually had a pretty big hand in screwing up, what with the drug war and all, and are thus much higher on the list of places that should get some intervention attention.


So let's say no to the UN and start working on helping Columbia and Mexico with real policies.

/I'm all for that.
 
2013-08-26 11:50:54 PM  
Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.
 
2013-08-26 11:53:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Radioactive Ass: I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocationto US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.

Rwanda is a shiathole next to a bunch of other shiatholes in an area of little strategic value to us.  Syria sits right next to two of our biggest allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, as well as Jordan, who we're on friendly terms with, and Saudi Arabia, which is obviously important for the global oil supply.

Plus, if bombing Assad pisses of China and Russia, all the better, we should relish the opportunity to let them know that their opinions don't dictate our actions.

The chemical weapons may be being used against his own citizens now, but what's to say that a Sarin-laden bomb or missile wouldn't be launched at Tel Aviv later down the road?  It's better to handle this quickly, let the Syrians dig out of the rubble and figure something out, and then re-evaluate about whether we need to go in again if the new regime doesn't work for our and our allies' interests.


while i am not saying it happened, i would not put it past anyone to gas their own to turn the tide.
they would all be martyrs, and they would be sending the "casualties" to heaven with the greatest possible blessing, so it is not something they would even feel guilty about....
 
2013-08-27 12:04:29 AM  

Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.


Honestly if you want to die for the cause I truly don't mind as long as I don't have to help pay for it. Actually, you should go. If you can rally up a platoon of like minded friends, I'd even drop that stipulation. I might actually pay extra.
 
2013-08-27 12:05:18 AM  

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Radioactive Ass: I'm aware of that but there is no way that we can bomb a country just because of who is leading them without some provocationto US . Afghanistan was left alone until 9/11. Iraq was left alone until Kuwait. Both were shiatholes who did horrible things to their own people. Secular or not you can't get away with bombing someone without good cause and bad leadership doesn't cross that line. Hell, look at Rwanda, they were committing genocide and we did nothing. Why? Because it didn't go outside of their own borders.

That my friend is the actual line in the real world. Unilateral action by us will not end well here. Unless Turkey asks us for help via NATO because it's spilled over their borders or the UN makes a resolution (which ain't gonna happen right now) we should just sit back and watch for now. If Europe wants to get involved I won't object as it's more or less in their backyard, and certainly more so than ours.

Rwanda is a shiathole next to a bunch of other shiatholes in an area of little strategic value to us.  Syria sits right next to two of our biggest allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, as well as Jordan, who we're on friendly terms with, and Saudi Arabia, which is obviously important for the global oil supply.

Plus, if bombing Assad pisses of China and Russia, all the better, we should relish the opportunity to let them know that their opinions don't dictate our actions.

The chemical weapons may be being used against his own citizens now, but what's to say that a Sarin-laden bomb or missile wouldn't be launched at Tel Aviv later down the road?  It's better to handle this quickly, let the Syrians dig out of the rubble and figure something out, and then re-evaluate about whether we need to go in again if the new regime doesn't work for our and our allies' interests.

while i am not saying it happened, i would not put it past anyone to gas their own to turn the tide.
they would all be martyrs, and they would be sending ...


Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.
 
2013-08-27 12:08:06 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.


our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?
 
2013-08-27 12:08:46 AM  

Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.


A term invented by the last decent Republican President we had: Eisenhower. Interestingly, when he wrote the speech, he called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, but his advisers talked him down.
 
2013-08-27 12:10:47 AM  

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?


To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.
 
2013-08-27 12:18:38 AM  

Apik0r0s: dr_blasto: Some people want, so badly, to have the neocon worldview vindicated that they'll believe anything. Even after a decade goes by and still no evidence in support of the actions of GW Bush's administration, they will still cling to just about any thread so they don't feel as used or cheated.

For the mindset that identifies as "conservative", nothing makes them more certain of something they believe than proof that it is wrong. Just look at how certain Southern Evangelicals are of the Prosperity Gospel and American War Jesus, despite the red words in their own Bible.


Emotional sunk cost fallacy, plus the fear of admitting you were wrong.
 
2013-08-27 12:24:44 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.


Assad launching rockets that look like they were made from car exhaust parts, five miles away from the newly arrived UN weapons inspectors, seems a bit ridiculous to me.
 
2013-08-27 12:25:36 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.


do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...
 
2013-08-27 12:31:19 AM  

Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.


upload.wikimedia.org
What someone who doesn't know shiat might look like.
 
2013-08-27 12:32:52 AM  

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.

do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...


None of it was intentional.  Civilian collateral damage is an ugly fact of war, but ultimately unavoidable, especially due to the nature of the combatants/insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.
 
2013-08-27 12:33:00 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: In this instance, we would be destroying Assad's air force. The only people dying are people in Assad's military. Don't forget that we'd be fighting an actual army this time, not a population that hates us.


I'm pretty sure that the general population of Syria already hates us just for Iraq alone. Doing nothing will not change that nor will doing something that roughly half of the population of Syria dislikes change that. There is no win here which is exactly why we should stay out of it. Taking sides means agreeing with them, not taking sides means agreeing with neither of them or at least not supporting them. What happens if Assad wins after we attack him? Do you think that the world would be a better place then? What if our attacks makes him lose so he decides to retaliate on Tel Aviv with the rest of his chemical armaments? You want to see a shiatstorm? That would be it.

There is no win here. Sometimes the best move really is no move at all.
 
2013-08-27 12:33:46 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: At least you stupid assholes can watch your country go up in flames. The Roman Empire too way too long to collapse from their corruption.


Canadian-like typing detected.
 
2013-08-27 12:39:27 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.

do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...

None of it was intentional.  Civilian collateral damage is an ugly fact of war, but ultimately unavoidable, especially due to the nature of the combatants/insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.


first of all, if they were targeting anything, it would be "enemy insurgents, terrorists, or foreign fighters" to them.
if they are attacking an enemy enclave, one must assume it is....full of enemies. doh!
if america thinks there is one bad guy, we'll blow up 50 people and go "oops".
i really don't see much difference there, weapons aside.
 
2013-08-27 12:39:41 AM  

Brontes: TuteTibiImperes: As long as we limit ourselves to air and missile strikes only we should be able to handle this quickly.  If we try to put boots on the ground and built a government over there we'll be looking at another Iraq.

The Iraq where we are greeted as liberators?  Sign me up!


Such as.
 
2013-08-27 12:49:37 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.


And there's a huge difference between making it a point to target only those known to be military targets and assuming that any male between 15 and 50 is automatically a target to be killed and added to the "militants killed" number for the week. We do that now, thanks Obama. It's like Vietnam and the "body count" for the press game.
 
2013-08-27 12:52:28 AM  

cman: Apik0r0s: Then show us the proof! Or are you still too busy manufacturing it in some Tel Aviv basement office?

Remember the last time we went to war over WMDs in the mid-east?

AIPAC pays good money to keep your leaders on the string, it would be unfair were they to not earn that money by blowing a few thousand Syrian children into dust. They're just Arab animals, after all.


8/10

This will get a few bites


He's not trolling. I farkied him as an anti-Semite way back in the Iran threads.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:05 AM  

Apik0r0s: TuteTibiImperes: There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.

And there's a huge difference between making it a point to target only those known to be military targets and assuming that any male between 15 and 50 is automatically a target to be killed and added to the "militants killed" number for the week. We do that now, thanks Obama. It's like Vietnam and the "body count" for the press game.


No, we really don't, they don't put people on the kill list without evidence, and footage from the helicopters over Iraq has shown the crews being very careful about children in the area.

Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Popular Opinion: TuteTibiImperes: Our own government seems to believe it was Assad, unless there's extremely damning evidence otherwise, trying to claim it was a false flag operation seems a bit ridiculous.

our own government is a bunch of hypocritical liars. the hypocrisy is staggering.
it's only ok if we kill babies?

To my knowledge our government does not have pro-baby killing stance.  Unless you're trying to troll regarding abortion, which of course is the termination of a medical condition, and not the death of a baby, so you'd still be wrong.

do you have any idea how many women and children non-combatants we have killed in the iraq and afghan wars?
add to the drone "mistakes" or collateral dammage scattered around the rest of the region...

None of it was intentional.  Civilian collateral damage is an ugly fact of war, but ultimately unavoidable, especially due to the nature of the combatants/insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There's a huge difference from accidentally killing civilians when trying to take out a military target and intentionally targeting your own citizens with chemical weapons.

first of all, if they were targeting anything, it would be "enemy insurgents, terrorists, or foreign fighters" to them.
if they are attacking an enemy enclave, one must assume it is....full of enemies. doh!
if america thinks there is one bad guy, we'll blow up 50 people and go "oops".
i really don't see much difference there, weapons aside.


We do everything we can to avoid shooting civilians.  We could have locked Iraq down years ago if the Army had a go-ahead to just shoot anyone who looked middle-eastern.  We've taken a lot of casualties and prolonged the rebuilding because we've been trying to avoid civilian deaths where we can.

Mind you, I disagree with the whole concept of nation building in the middle east.  We should've gotten out right after we smashed the Iraqi military, or at the least after we captures Sadam.  Anything we build they'll destroy, and any systems we put into place they'll pervert.  It's not worth the time or trouble, and I suspect a lot of it was done to funnel cash into the hands of defense contractors and businesses with an inside track.  That, I'm 100% against.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:22 AM  
omnibus_necanda_sunt: Hey. You.

Yeah, you.

Could you do me a favor and look at a map?

See that part where the three greenish-yellow blobs meet up?

That's the Middle East.

The blob things are continents. They're kind of important.

So, a region where three of them join together is kind of important.

The capital of Syria has been inhabited since the invention of agriculture, and was a major stop on the Silk Road, the most important cultural crossroads in the history of everything ever that ever was, ever.

And please note that the configuration of the Earth's landmasses have not changed more than a few dozen yards in all that time.

Syria is incredibly important. Unlike mountainous Afghanistan, spillover from Syria will destabilize the entire region. And Syria is on the Mediterranean, right on Europe's doorstep. It was a rapidly-modernizing, vibrant, uncharacteristically secular place. Letting the conflict continue is simply NOT. AN. OPTION.

Let me repeat.

NOT. AN. OPTION.

Too many negative variables are at play to allow this to continue. In a global economy, this kind of shiat hits everyone's fans.

We will not be alone. The entirety of Europe opposes Assad, and there are secular rebels in Syria. For the moment.

This will be unpleasant. The unfortunate parallels with the Iraq war are grating.

But simply because it's in the Middle East doesn't mean we can ignore it. The world no longer allows any country to take its ball and go home. International politics is too complex for temper tantrums.

Everyone saying "Oh look, it's another war in the Middle East over WMDs; it's obviously bullshiat and we should ignore it" is simply advertising their lack of integrative complexity and complete failure to grasp nuance.


It's ok because my side is in office, and it's all Bush's fault anyway.


FTFY.
 
2013-08-27 12:58:08 AM  

Amos Quito: I agree completely with what you say, but I really need to get some new initials.

:-(


I can sell you an alt cheap... Other than that talk to Drew.
 
2013-08-27 01:02:11 AM  

ciberido: Owangotang: Military industrial complex is just the latest political-hipster buzzphrase signifying that the speaker doesn't know shiat.

[297x375 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Eisenhower_in_the_O val_Office.jpg image 297x375]
What someone who doesn't know shiat might look like.


No shiat.
 
2013-08-27 01:06:14 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: shower_in_my_socks: TuteTibiImperes: Basically reduce the Syrian armed forces to rubble and put them on equal footing with the rebels.


So help Al Qaeda and Hamas? This is why we need to stay the fark out of this thing. There is no good side in this.

THERE ARE FARKING SECULAR REBELS.

DOING NOTHING IS THE BEST WAY TO HELP AL QAEDA.



Writing in all caps doesn't make you any less wrong.
 
2013-08-27 01:06:51 AM  

Carousel Beast: It's ok because my side is in office, and it's all Bush's fault anyway.


The really funny part of this is that less than 2 years into Bush's first term the anti-Bush people were screaming Bu.Bu.Bu.But Clinton and saying that it was well past the time to put the blame on any groundwork laid by him. Now we see the exact same thing only in reverse and the same people who had a problem with it in 2002 are having no problem with it now even when it's about stuff that is much more serious.

I said this back then and they swore up and down that that wouldn't happen... yet here we are.
 
Displayed 50 of 485 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report