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.

(Politico)   Old and Busted: "Libya: Big test for first term president" New Hotness: "Syria: Big test for second-term president" Same war, different location   (politico.com) divider line 54
    More: Interesting, Syrians, Libya, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Michael O'Hanlon, Samantha Power, Syrian rebels, Leon Panetta, Petraeus  
•       •       •

235 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Aug 2013 at 9:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 09:30:19 AM  
If you think Syria and Libya would be the "same war" you need to go back to school.
 
2013-08-27 09:32:53 AM  
Not the same war, not the same objectives, not the same on-the-ground players. International relations is hard.
 
2013-08-27 09:34:06 AM  
No More War
 
2013-08-27 09:37:35 AM  
Funny how these scenarios just keep repeating and repeating.
 
2013-08-27 09:37:58 AM  
4 more beers!
 
2013-08-27 09:39:27 AM  
"He used chemical weapons on his own people."

Echo, echo, echo ...
 
2013-08-27 09:41:43 AM  
Libya, Egypt, Iran... currently this president is at 0 - 3 on those. We'll have to see if fails Syria as well.
 
2013-08-27 09:41:49 AM  

NobleHam: If you think Syria and Libya would be the "same war" you need to go back to school stop posting.


for reals, though.
 
2013-08-27 09:45:39 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: "He used chemical weapons on his own people."

Echo, echo, echo ...


Well, this time, it's a bit more of an immediate reaction than "He gassed his own people 30 years ago". That, and we're trying to get UN support, and specifically trying NOT to go to war (compared to Iraq, where it's pretty clear that either Bush or Cheney, or both, wanted Iraq as soon as Plane 1 hit the WTC).

Looks the same; isn't.

// statement withdrawn if Obama decides to send 150k troops
// this looks more like Bosnia or Clinton's surgical strikes - maybe UN/NATO troops go, but it'll probably just be some cruise missiles hitting strategic targets to help the rebels
 
2013-08-27 09:53:15 AM  
The USA gets involved with international conflicts:
OMG world police, war for oil, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

The USA doesn't get involved with international conflicts:
OMG WMDS, why aren't they helping, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

You can't explain that.
 
2013-08-27 09:53:24 AM  

Dr Dreidel: HotIgneous Intruder: "He used chemical weapons on his own people."

Echo, echo, echo ...

Well, this time, it's a bit more of an immediate reaction than "He gassed his own people 30 years ago". That, and we're trying to get UN support, and specifically trying NOT to go to war (compared to Iraq, where it's pretty clear that either Bush or Cheney, or both, wanted Iraq as soon as Plane 1 hit the WTC).

Looks the same; isn't.

// statement withdrawn if Obama decides to send 150k troops
// this looks more like Bosnia or Clinton's surgical strikes - maybe UN/NATO troops go, but it'll probably just be some cruise missiles hitting strategic targets to help the rebels


Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions ...
Echo, echo, echo ...

Team America, WORLD POLICE, fark yeah!
 
2013-08-27 09:54:00 AM  
Dude, when you're a hammer, all problems look like a nail.
 
2013-08-27 09:56:34 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Dude, when you're a hammer, all problems look like a nail.


And when you're dumb, all tools look the same.
 
2013-08-27 09:58:59 AM  

Dr Dreidel: // statement withdrawn if Obama decides to send 150k troops


Therein lies the problem. What's an acceptable response? What's more important:  the lives of our troops, or the lives of innocent people being gassed by their own dicktater-fer-life (not to mention principles)?  I don't know what other subtle nuances were involved when we decided to get involved in WWII, but there was obviously a tipping point when we decided to put the lives of our military personnel on the line.  Sometimes it's a good idea (or, rather, the least of all evils), and sometimes it's incredibly stupid (i.e., Iraq).

Assad is also backed by the Russians, so I can't help but wonder how that factors into the decision-making process here:  if it's a deterrent or something else.
 
2013-08-27 10:01:12 AM  

Egoy3k: The USA gets involved with international conflicts:
OMG world police, war for oil, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

The USA doesn't get involved with international conflicts:
OMG WMDS, why aren't they helping, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

You can't explain that.


Superpowers are dicks. The USA is a superpower. The USA has been a dick to everyone, non-stop, and the pittance of money spent on foreign aid does more to make Americans feel righteous than it does to fix problems. Therefore, everyone treats the USA like everything they do is dickish, because almost everything they do is dickish.

Tada, explained.
 
2013-08-27 10:08:40 AM  

TalenLee: Egoy3k: The USA gets involved with international conflicts:
OMG world police, war for oil, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

The USA doesn't get involved with international conflicts:
OMG WMDS, why aren't they helping, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

You can't explain that.

Superpowers are dicks. The USA is a superpower. The USA has been a dick to everyone, non-stop, and the pittance of money spent on foreign aid does more to make Americans feel righteous than it does to fix problems. Therefore, everyone treats the USA like everything they do is dickish, because almost everything they do is dickish.

Tada, explained.


Yep, pretty much.  We spent a half-century doing some incredibly shiatty things to various corners of the world, all in the name of telling people the Soviets were shiattier.  And that entity is gone, so we're the one left to answer for our half of the Cold War - and to a certain extent, theirs as well.
 
2013-08-27 10:09:56 AM  

Infernalist: HotIgneous Intruder: Dude, when you're a hammer, all problems look like a nail.

And when you're dumb, all tools look the same.


That explain the entire American problem then.
 
2013-08-27 10:11:13 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Yep, pretty much.  We spent a half-century doing some incredibly shiatty things to various corners of the world, all in the name of telling people the Soviets were shiattier.  And that entity is gone, so we're the one left to answer for our half of the Cold War - and to a certain extent, theirs as well.


We pretty much have become the Soviet Union in many ways.
Bin Laden intended this to be the outcome.

/Dude was astute.
 
2013-08-27 10:12:15 AM  

TalenLee: Egoy3k: The USA gets involved with international conflicts:
OMG world police, war for oil, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

The USA doesn't get involved with international conflicts:
OMG WMDS, why aren't they helping, Americans are all evil heartless bastards.

You can't explain that.

Superpowers are dicks. The USA is a superpower. The USA has been a dick to everyone, non-stop, and the pittance of money spent on foreign aid does more to make Americans feel righteous than it does to fix problems. Therefore, everyone treats the USA like everything they do is dickish, because almost everything they do is dickish.

Tada, explained.


You seem to be under the impression that international relations operates on the same level as kids in grade school.  The USA isn't beholden to anybody but the USA and fark everyone else if they don't like it.  We are all just lucky that global war isn't in the best interests of the USA.  If they want to impose peace on a region it's because trade in that region is important to them not because they are nice people.  Why should the world work any other way?
 
2013-08-27 10:12:58 AM  

xanadian: What's an acceptable response?


Much like Bistromathics, whatever the "acceptable response is", Obama won't choose it. Either he'll be too weak because of solidarity with his Muslim comrades, or he'll be occupying Syria for an indefinite period, throwing far too much treasure into the ground and losing too much American blood.

xanadian: Assad is also backed by the Russians, so I can't help but wonder how that factors into the decision-making process here: if it's a deterrent or something else.


It means no UNSC vote, unless Russia comes to the same conclusions France, the UK, and the US did. Given that Putin likes jamming his fingers in the US' eyes at every turn, he'd vote against action just 'cause.
 
2013-08-27 10:13:13 AM  
NO NEW, FIX OLD!

/or something like that
 
2013-08-27 10:18:02 AM  
Wars and International Diplomacy are a challenge for any President, it doesn't really matter when it happens in their presidency.
 
2013-08-27 10:19:46 AM  

Egoy3k: If they want to impose peace on a region


Stopped reading right there.
Want to know how I know you don't have a clue how the world works?
 
2013-08-27 10:21:14 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wars and International Diplomacy are a challenge for any President, it doesn't really matter when it happens in their presidency.


Yes. And Obama is flummoxed into total paralysis by a fly in the room.
The president will do exactly as his neocon handlers tell him to do.
 
2013-08-27 10:23:51 AM  

xanadian: Dr Dreidel: // statement withdrawn if Obama decides to send 150k troops

Therein lies the problem. What's an acceptable response? What's more important:  the lives of our troops, or the lives of innocent people being gassed by their own dicktater-fer-life (not to mention principles)?  I don't know what other subtle nuances were involved when we decided to get involved in WWII, but there was obviously a tipping point when we decided to put the lives of our military personnel on the line.  Sometimes it's a good idea (or, rather, the least of all evils), and sometimes it's incredibly stupid (i.e., Iraq).

Assad is also backed by the Russians, so I can't help but wonder how that factors into the decision-making process here:  if it's a deterrent or something else.


Our interests in this case and WWII are worlds apart. The only American interest I really see here is to send a message. Don't use chemical weapons or we will bomb you, the end. i don't think the President or any member of congress has the appetite to actually send in troops or even enforce a no-fly zone. That leaves us cruise missiles and sanctions.

So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.
 
2013-08-27 10:25:03 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wars and International Diplomacy are a challenge for any President, it doesn't really matter when it happens in their presidency.

Yes. And Obama is flummoxed into total paralysis by a fly in the room.
The president will do exactly as his neocon handlers tell him to do.


I don't know what solid reason you'd have to believe that, given his record generally, but okay.
 
2013-08-27 10:25:53 AM  

WTF Indeed: Not the same war, not the same objectives, not the same on-the-ground players. International relations is hard.


No doubt.  World leaders in this day and age are in the unenviable position of having to dress up power politics in Wilsonian ideals.
 
2013-08-27 10:26:39 AM  

sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.


Purty much this.
 
2013-08-27 10:27:15 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Egoy3k: If they want to impose peace on a region

Stopped reading right there.
Want to know how I know you don't have a clue how the world works?


I never said that it was possible.
 
2013-08-27 10:27:36 AM  

cannibalparrot: WTF Indeed: Not the same war, not the same objectives, not the same on-the-ground players. International relations is hard.

No doubt.  World leaders in this day and age are in the unenviable position of having to dress up power politics in Wilsonian ideals.


Only to fool idiotic Americans.
 
2013-08-27 10:31:35 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: cannibalparrot: WTF Indeed: Not the same war, not the same objectives, not the same on-the-ground players. International relations is hard.

No doubt.  World leaders in this day and age are in the unenviable position of having to dress up power politics in Wilsonian ideals.

Only to fool idiotic Americans.


Fair enough.  I guess the rest of the world is playing a different game than we are.
 
2013-08-27 10:34:38 AM  

Egoy3k: You seem to be under the impression that international relations operates on the same level as kids in grade school.


It does, when you're a superpower. You bully everyone around you, take land that isn't yours, coerce international policy that just happens to massively benefit your way of life, and then claim it's all in other peoples' interests, never applied in an equal or egalitarian way. Britain did it, Denmark did it, and the US does it.
 
2013-08-27 10:49:48 AM  
"Why hasn't Obama intervened? He's weak!"

"Why did Obama intervene?"

"Obama should have intervened with a greater show of force"

"Why did Obama allow our men in harms way?"


There. Just about covered the Republican positions...
 
2013-08-27 11:30:22 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: cannibalparrot: WTF Indeed: Not the same war, not the same objectives, not the same on-the-ground players. International relations is hard.

No doubt.  World leaders in this day and age are in the unenviable position of having to dress up power politics in Wilsonian ideals.

Only to fool idiotic Americans.


I wonder if America will ever come to a point where it realizes it isn't that special.
 
2013-08-27 11:48:15 AM  

verbaltoxin: HotIgneous Intruder: cannibalparrot: WTF Indeed: Not the same war, not the same objectives, not the same on-the-ground players. International relations is hard.

No doubt.  World leaders in this day and age are in the unenviable position of having to dress up power politics in Wilsonian ideals.

Only to fool idiotic Americans.

I wonder if America will ever come to a point where it realizes it isn't that special.


Only after we can no longer afford to field our crazy-expensive military.  We've been a warmongering nation ever since we discovered we're rather good at it.  Jingoism tells us that everything we do is justified and in the right.  Until we lose, and lose  badly, this will be the status quo.
 
2013-08-27 12:21:30 PM  
This is one of those times when it must really, really suck to be President.
 
2013-08-27 12:27:43 PM  

LasersHurt: Yes. And Obama is flummoxed into total paralysis by a fly in the room.


Now I know he's trolling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbUH_iVjYw
 
2013-08-27 12:58:46 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.


Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.
 
2013-08-27 01:34:43 PM  

simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.


actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.
 
2013-08-27 01:46:41 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.

actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.


This is me playing the world's tiniest viola.
 
2013-08-27 02:12:48 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.

actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.


I think that delivering napalm would involve using actual aircraft, rather than sit back and fire a cruise missile. Same for bunker busters. Which means actual incursion into Syrian airspace. I image the Syrians have anti aircraft measures.
 
2013-08-27 02:17:25 PM  

simplicimus: TrollingForColumbine: simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.

actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.

I think that delivering napalm would involve using actual aircraft, rather than sit back and fire a cruise missile. Same for bunker busters. Which means actual incursion into Syrian airspace. I image the Syrians have anti aircraft measures.


I imagine the military would open with cruise missile strikes to destroy or severely diminish Syria's anti-aircraft countermeasures.
 
2013-08-27 02:21:33 PM  

randomjsa: Libya, Egypt, Iran... currently this president is at 0 - 3 on those. We'll have to see if fails Syria as well.


Yeah, he can improve his record to 0-4.  0 wars fought, 4 war avoided.
 
2013-08-27 02:25:14 PM  

qorkfiend: simplicimus: TrollingForColumbine: simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.

actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.

I think that delivering napalm would involve using actual aircraft, rather than sit back and fire a cruise missile. Same for bunker busters. Which means actual incursion into Syrian airspace. I image the Syrians have anti aircraft measures.

I imagine the military would open with cruise missile strikes to destroy or severely diminish Syria's anti-aircraft countermeasures.


Assuming their in a open fixed area, sure.
 
2013-08-27 02:25:57 PM  
Damn, they're.
 
2013-08-27 02:26:31 PM  

simplicimus: TrollingForColumbine: simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.

actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.

I think that delivering napalm would involve using actual aircraft, rather than sit back and fire a cruise missile. Same for bunker busters. Which means actual incursion into Syrian airspace. I image the Syrians have anti aircraft measures.


we have stealthy craft. I would assume we have penetrating high explosive and incinerary war heads for missles. napalm was just a brand name I was using.
 
2013-08-27 02:31:49 PM  

simplicimus: qorkfiend: simplicimus: TrollingForColumbine: simplicimus: HotIgneous Intruder: sammyk: So the Russians will deny us the UN resolution. We will bomb anything we think is a chemical weapons related facility and the Russians will STFU.

Purty much this.

Bombing a Chemical weapons facility is a remarkably stupid idea, what with it being filled with Chemical Weapons and all.

actually incineration is a preferred method of destruction for chemical weapon. Hit with some bunker busters then napalm. Walla.

I think that delivering napalm would involve using actual aircraft, rather than sit back and fire a cruise missile. Same for bunker busters. Which means actual incursion into Syrian airspace. I image the Syrians have anti aircraft measures.

I imagine the military would open with cruise missile strikes to destroy or severely diminish Syria's anti-aircraft countermeasures.

Assuming their in a open fixed area, sure.


I didn't say it would be easy, just that the military would probably use cruise missiles to pave the way for airstrikes.
 
2013-08-27 04:33:04 PM  
The more I read, the more I am beginning to question if Assad's forces were behind the chemical attack.

The Syrian army has been making big gains of late and winning the war. What sense would it make to unleash chemical weapons and draw down the western powers on the Syrian forces.

As of now I have seen no evidence presented that either side is responsible. And with the chemical weapons Syria has been stockpiling for some time it is a given that the rebels easily could have gained a cache of them.

This is starting to look like a repeat of the false excuses to go into Iraq.
 
2013-08-27 05:05:14 PM  

wesmon: The more I read, the more I am beginning to question if Assad's forces were behind the chemical attack.

The Syrian army has been making big gains of late and winning the war. What sense would it make to unleash chemical weapons and draw down the western powers on the Syrian forces.

As of now I have seen no evidence presented that either side is responsible. And with the chemical weapons Syria has been stockpiling for some time it is a given that the rebels easily could have gained a cache of them.

This is starting to look like a repeat of the false excuses to go into Iraq.


The difference being that Syria, unlike Iraq, demonstrably has chemical weapons.

I also think that, in the long run, we don't particularly care who used them; we're more interested in making sure they don't wind up in the hands of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah when all is said and done.

Though, as you say, if this was the rebels, that cat's out of the bag already...
 
2013-08-27 05:15:32 PM  

randomjsa: Libya, Egypt, Iran... currently this president is at 0 - 3 on those. We'll have to see if fails Syria as well.


i.qkme.me

Point taken, Nostradamus.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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