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.

(Yahoo)   Kerry, "The use of chemical weapons is reminiscent of Ghengis Khan." Syria calls Kerry a liar, says, "They never used chemical weapons in Cambodia at Christmas time"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 293
    More: Interesting, Ghengis Khan, Associated Press photographer, chemical warfares, Christmastime, Doctors Without Borders, Damascus, chemical weapons  
•       •       •

3685 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:09 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 10:41:28 AM
The memory was Syria'd, Syria'd in him.
 
2013-08-27 10:41:41 AM

Magorn: Assad would lose the capability of waging offense war and force the civil to a negotiated end


If you fracture the Assad regime, there is nothing to hold what's left of the country's political order in one piece.  It would be every faction for themselves.  The situation would deteriorate much like Iraq, with each tribal group battling over their territory.  It could last decades.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:05 AM

The Muthaship: Did he say it "Jenjis Khan".



www.mglclub.com

It's no worse a mispronunciation of Genghis Khan, than, well, "Genghis Khan."  The actual name is "Чингис хаан."  A better romanization, and the one used in Mongolia now, is "Chinggis khaan."  And the "kh" in "khaan/khan" is more like a harsh "h" sound, like in "Chanukah" or "loch."

Genghis Khan 's a hero in there (well, Outer Mongolia, at least) of almost mythological proportions.  Statues and depictions of him are everywhere, and his name is plastered on pretty much everything, from vodka to airports.  I really mean pretty much everything.  When I lived there my bank was Chinggis Khaan Bank.

I'm not really sure what the deal is in Inner Mongolia.  It's under China's control, so it could be completely different.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:16 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: This will not end up in a war. Maybe a few drones strikes and some intel support, but that's it.


Very much this.

It's another Libya.  Quick, limited engagement, and no boots on the ground.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:31 AM
Can you imagine the heartburn and anger if France or England had stepped in and helped during the Civil War? Boots on the ground ships in the harbor- that kind of thing.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:33 AM
Well, Obama did promise an end to American exceptionalism and to humiliate us until we are no longer seen as GloboCops or Leaders of the Free World.

/no faster way to keep that promise than by breaking his "red line" promise
 
2013-08-27 10:42:34 AM
kent state. USA will shoot you in the head for peaceful protest, but thinks gassing you is too much.

Boo hoo.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:51 AM

Magorn: So those of you who want us to do nothing are basically okay with giving world leaders carte blanche for war crimes and genocide?

I'm the last person who wants us to go to war to support the rebels who want to overthrow Assad, the bulk of the rebel forces are the exactl same people who were shooting at US troops in Iraq while calling themselves Al-qaeda in Iraq. (Militant Syrian Salafist extremists-backed by Saudi cash)  but, doing this to civillians is not okay either.  It wasn't okay in Germany in the 40's nor Bosnia or Rawanda in the 90's or the Sudan in the 2000's.  There has to be a line over which no leader or ruler cannot cross without major consquences and Syria is over that line.

My solution?  Remove his stockpiles of chemical weapons and ability to deliver them.   A combined Tomahwak /Drone/B-2 raid on all his known chemical weapons stockpiles and airfields is perfectly appropriate and extremely low risk response by the US.   If we also struck his major artillery  stockpiles, Assad would lose the capability of waging offense war and force the civil to a negotiated end


Short answer, yes. Without a mandate from the UN Security Council (which will never ever happen with Russia) we'll be going in just like we did the last time, with a bullsh*t "coalition of the willing." NATO and the Arab League is not enough to contain the large amount of American casualties that would result from the inevitable escalation and "nation building."
F*ck all that, we've got enough problems at home. War no longer serves to employ the general public, and the MIC will keep dragging us into the conflicts until we have no soul nor shred of integrity left. I wish the draft had not been abolished; we would never see this kind of repetitive foolishness if the average American thought their skin might be on the line.
 
2013-08-27 10:42:58 AM

Marcus Aurelius: SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run <B>amuck</B>.

You mean the civil war in Syria will be so appealing to them that they'll decide they need civil wars of their own?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.


Trolls have tells, dude.
 
2013-08-27 10:43:09 AM

fireclown: So, the use of chemical weapons in plain sight is to go unpunished?  I'm for staying out of this gorram mess too, but we should discuss the outcome of that action.


If the outcome of inaction is no worse than the outcome of intervention then I vote inaction.
 
2013-08-27 10:43:12 AM

Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.


*scoff* "Our Country".   Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else.    Humans are humans.  Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.



Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.
 
2013-08-27 10:43:30 AM
No matter which side wins in Syria the USA and most of the civilized world loses.  Let the UN or other middle east countries handle this.
 
2013-08-27 10:43:36 AM
I'm surprised Kerry can even enunciateGhengis Khan.  The man's had so much Botox it's a wonder he can even chew food.
 
2013-08-27 10:45:19 AM

fireclown: So, the use of chemical weapons in plain sight is to go unpunished?  I'm for staying out of this gorram mess too, but we should discuss the outcome of that action.


In Rwanda they used mostly machetes and fire, and still managed to kill of half a million people inside of 100 days.

Not one western government did a damn thing about it.
 
2013-08-27 10:46:15 AM

TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.


*scoff* "Our Country".   Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else.    Humans are humans.  Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.


Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.


Balls and tenacity aren't factors. If it doesn't serve the interests of the banks and major industries that own Washington, our government could give a f*ck about human suffering.
 
2013-08-27 10:46:21 AM
I guess this is where 'humanitarian' progressives get together with national greatness neocons to get their war boner on.
 
2013-08-27 10:48:20 AM
We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.
 
2013-08-27 10:48:39 AM
American foreign policy has been in a shambles for a long time.  Normally a country will try to promote a foreign policy that is in its own best interests.  I can't remember an Administration since Kennedy that had a clear idea of what that is.

If we're going to try to influence who runs other countries, we should make sure we know what we would like the end result to be and go with those in that country who have the best shot at accomplishing those goals.  We know that certain things promote success and stability in countries.  1)The supremacy of the rule of law and (to at least a large degree) the equality of every citizen before the law.  2)Every citizen has economic freedom and security.  They may not all be rich but they know that if they make it they can keep it.  Capricious confiscation of property by tyrannical rulers is a guarantee of economic failure.  3) Regardless of any predominant religion, the government operates on the basis of religious tolerance and freedom with limited (at most) intrusion of religion into the government.  Those ideals are why we should favor Israel over  Syria, for example, but unless we're willing to go into Syria, take it over, stand up the form of government that we know works and then transition into leaving, anything we do will be a failure.

Look at what we accomplished in Japan after WW II.  Look at and compare the two Koreas.  Perfect examples of the U.S. using its influence and a rough model of its own form of government to help establish countries that are successful, stable, peaceful, and friendly.  Look at (prior to re-unification) the two Germanies.  There was our model in W. Germany and the Soviet model in East Germany.  The Berlin wall wasn't to keep the West Berliners out of East Berlin.

We seem to have lost sight of those goals in dealing with foreign countries.  Obama messed up in Egypt and Libya because he has fallen victim to the American Presidential Disease of not understanding what it is that makes a country's government successful and how to develop and promote that in other countries.  That is not to pick on Obama - as I pointed out, no President in recent memory has been successful in dealing with rogue states.  We like to think that we need to promote democracy.  But if there is a free and fair election that puts a tyrant into office, they still have a dysfunctional government and a miserable populace.

Until we have someone - anyone - in the Administration or State Department who can clearly and concisely make the case for that form of government, we should not be messing around with any other country's government.  For 50 years now, things get worse instead of better whenever we mess around.
 
2013-08-27 10:48:49 AM

Nadie_AZ: Can you imagine the heartburn and anger if France or England had stepped in and helped during the Civil War? Boots on the ground ships in the harbor- that kind of thing.


The South was close to making it happen.  They even burned their cotton crops to deny Europe a vital raw material for their textile industry, in the hopes of England coming in on the side of slavery.  They didn't count on Egypt being such a good place to grow cotton that we still have Egyptian cotton to this very day.
 
2013-08-27 10:49:04 AM
Does this mean Henry Kissinger will be returning his Nobel Peace Prize? I dinna think so.
 
2013-08-27 10:49:06 AM

Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.


THIS
 
2013-08-27 10:49:16 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.


*scoff* "Our Country".   Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else.    Humans are humans.  Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.


Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.

Balls and tenacity aren't factors. If it doesn't serve the interests of the banks and major industries that own Washington, our government could give a f*ck about human suffering.



The same is true about the population at large.  After all, we vote them in and "the government" is composed of everyday people.  Tribalism is a feature of the current stage of human development.  If "they" aren't part of our tribe, fark 'em.
 
Esn
2013-08-27 10:49:24 AM

SeriousGeorge: Looks like you Americans are getting involved in this whether the populace wants it or not.


It's been well-known for a while (at least inside academia) that the policy preferences of low- and middle-income Americans have been completely irrelevant to the policy actions of the American government for at least a few decades. American policy is almost entirely dictated by the opinions of the wealthy elite. It only seems like public opinion polls matter because sometimes the wealthy elite want the same things that the general public does.

I really wish that the media would stop reporting public opinion polls altogether (because they are irrelevant) and start polling only the very richest people. This would at least give us a good idea of what to expect in the future. Because it'll be naturally difficult to get the elite to take the time to answer opinion polls, the media should instead focus on how they spend their money politically. Since money represents speech, this will give a good, reliable indication of what the government's mandate is.
 
2013-08-27 10:49:47 AM

Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.


Why don't we limit the right to vote to veterans? I bet the VA would be cleaned up in no time.


would you like to know more?
 
2013-08-27 10:50:11 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: If it doesn't serve the interests of the banks and major industries that own Washington, our government could give a f*ck about human suffering.


^ Very much this.
 
2013-08-27 10:50:53 AM
Some diplomat. He tries to insult Syria and insults Mongolia instead.
 
2013-08-27 10:50:59 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Why don't we limit the right to vote to veterans? I bet the VA would be cleaned up in no time.


would you like to know more?


As long as I get one of those guns that shoots tactical nukes.

For deer hunting. They've gotten big
 
2013-08-27 10:51:53 AM
Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.
 
2013-08-27 10:53:11 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Magorn: Assad would lose the capability of waging offense war and force the civil to a negotiated end

If you fracture the Assad regime, there is nothing to hold what's left of the country's political order in one piece.  It would be every faction for themselves.  The situation would deteriorate much like Iraq, with each tribal group battling over their territory.  It could last decades.


Probably true. But would that necesarily be a bad thing or at least the worst thing?  We'd all like a peaceful transition from dictator to democracy, but even Egypt who arguably had the best shot at it, doesn't seem to have made that work.  Iraq is a bloody, dysfunctional mess, but there are signs that a nascent multi-ethnic democracy may be emerging from the chaos, even if it takes decades of factional fighting to fully gel.  If the "post-Assad" civil war is inevitable sooner or later, is thee an argument to be made for sooner?
 
2013-08-27 10:53:23 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.

Why don't we limit the right to vote to veterans? I bet the VA would be cleaned up in no time.


would you like to know more?


So suggesting we pay for the war and have a draft to fight it are now equal to going Starship Troopers?

 
2013-08-27 10:54:06 AM

Magorn: So those of you who want us to do nothing are basically okay with giving world leaders carte blanche for war crimes and genocide?


Scenario:  you live at 631 Mockingbird lane in Suburbia, USA.  You find out that two cities (continents) over, there's a street where a father is brutally beating up his children indiscriminately, and that he's doing it because he has a teenage son that is violent and prone to destructive behavior himself; just last week, that son caught an old lady's cat, stuffed it with m80s, and exploded it all over the lady's front porch.

For what ever reason, we have a very powerful neighborhood watch program on our street over here.  It is so powerful in fact that it spends most of its time patrolling other neighborhoods - generally even in other towns.  "Those of us who want us to do nothing are basically saying" that our neighborhood watch program has absolutely no moral reason to be patrolling other neighborhoods, especially those two towns over.  We could support and strengthen the county sheriff - who would have jurisdiction over there - but instead we actively undermine them, making them unable to do much more than send a letter.  The best (and only) thing we actually do for the sheriff is give them a safe place to make their offices; otherwise, even the population of our neighborhood mocks the sheriff's office.  The other option is to offer aide to the town constable over where the problem exists.

But yes - we're saying that we shouldn't just load up our pickup trucks, drive over there, and vigilante-style lynch all those involved.  We've gotten quite the reputation for doing that on a regular basis, and every time we've done it the situation only got worse.  Let's try having this one go the ethically correct way for a change, and see how that works out.
 
2013-08-27 10:54:25 AM

Aarontology: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Why don't we limit the right to vote to veterans? I bet the VA would be cleaned up in no time.


would you like to know more?

As long as I get one of those guns that shoots tactical nukes.

For deer hunting. They've gotten big


The shoulder mounted gun that targeted what you were looking at? If I remember, that whole getup was awesome. Provided it had power, that is.
 
2013-08-27 10:54:36 AM

sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.


But who do we stop? Why just Assad? Plenty goes on every day and we do nothing. What about all that goes on in the Sudan or in Somalia? We could pound the opposition into dust, but what about when fighting asymetric targets on foot after we've trained soldiers, who then use the training to go on their own path of wanton killing and rape?

The Syrian rebels aren't our friends either, and will gladly use any mistakes we make against us. The only way to win is to establish Syria as our own, like we tried (and failed) to do in Iraq. The other winning outcome is to not play and let Assad kill off the rebels. If the Syrians want to try again, and want to be on our side, maybe we'll talk. Assad killing civilians only foments more rebellion anyway.
 
2013-08-27 10:54:59 AM

Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.


THIS! It's easy to get all bloodthirsty when you've got no personal stake in the matter and just want to see things go "boom". I'm pretty sickened by the whole thing.
 
2013-08-27 10:56:37 AM

Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.


Yes. Or go back to requiring that foreign interventions be funded with war bonds instead of tax money, like in WWII. When a populace has had enough of a war, they stop buying the bonds and that's the end of it. Everyone gets a 'vote' on whether a cause is just.
 
2013-08-27 10:57:20 AM
We should let the UN carry the load on this one. It is about time they started doing something. If they don't, can't or won't then screw it.
 
2013-08-27 10:57:39 AM
What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.
 
2013-08-27 10:57:45 AM
Well if we do nothing they will hate us if we do something they will really hate us. I think I am happier with being hated than really hated at this point.
 
2013-08-27 10:58:11 AM

sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.


Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.
 
2013-08-27 10:58:17 AM
Disco feet... thanks autocorrect
 
2013-08-27 10:59:35 AM
vabenefitawareness.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-27 10:59:40 AM

The Muthaship: Did he say it "Jenjis Khan".

I love when he does that.


My first thought also.
 
2013-08-27 11:02:11 AM

sign_of_Zeta: What I have learned (though I already knew this): Americans are for helping innocent people, unless it means any source of sacrifice or disco feet, even indirectly.

And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents. That should be a goal everyone wants.


Pretty much.  It's absolutely disgusting how people think that it's okay to let human beings be murdered indiscriminately by their own government with weapons so cruel they've been banned for over a hundred years by international agreement, as long as it isn't  my government that's doing it.  What the fark is wrong with people?
 
2013-08-27 11:02:16 AM
The modern spelling is "Chingges Khan"
 
2013-08-27 11:02:18 AM

Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.


If I had the power to make a significant difference, I would seriously consider it. I don't. However, our country does. And combined with enough other nations, they will have the authority to be able to do it without other negative repercussions a single American citizen would not.

Isolationism may work well in the short term, but it leads no where but trouble.
 
2013-08-27 11:03:05 AM

TheDirtyNacho: UrukHaiGuyz: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: TheDirtyNacho: Nadie_AZ: Shut up Kerry. I don't care. You assholes who voted for Iraq before you were against it have no credibility in this department. I don't care of Assad kills every last rebel with awful biological weapons. I don't want our country involved in this one. No more. Enough.


*scoff* "Our Country".   Petty tribalism like that holds humanity back more than anything else.    Humans are humans.  Something should be done.

And yet we want to build a massive wall to keep our southern neighbors out. While they struggle with drug cartels and poverty. Got it.


Unfortunately if it cant be bombed or cruise missile'd, this government doesn't have the balls or tenacity to tackle it.

Balls and tenacity aren't factors. If it doesn't serve the interests of the banks and major industries that own Washington, our government could give a f*ck about human suffering.


The same is true about the population at large.  After all, we vote them in and "the government" is composed of everyday people.  Tribalism is a feature of the current stage of human development.  If "they" aren't part of our tribe, fark 'em.


We don't even care about own tribe at this point. What the f*ck is the point of all this retarded nationalistic wank-fest if we still let our own die in the street of hunger, violence and preventable disease?
 
2013-08-27 11:03:51 AM
What's in Israel's best interest, invade or sit it out?

Cause that'll be what we do.

And Kerry sounding like his famous 1971 speech as a student returning from war, reciting the atrocities. Only back then he was accusing the USA, now he's accusing another government. Who knew then he was auditioning for his job 40 years later. Back then he was testifying against being in a war, now he is presumably in favor of it.
 
2013-08-27 11:04:23 AM

SeriousGeorge: Looks like you Americans are getting involved in this whether the populace wants it or not.


The US government has nothing to do with the will of The People. The government is bought and paid for by the top 5% of the wealth interests of the country.
 
2013-08-27 11:05:19 AM

Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got involved in two shiatty wars we never should have and that caused a backlash, but the fact is if we in America truly want to be a better country, we have to help protect innocent people around the world. Work with other major powers and stop atrocities. People's right to live, the most basic of rights, is being flagrantly violated, yet so many of us want to do nothing. It makes me sad to be in a country where so many people would choose to ignore that rather than help.

Rifles an plane tickets are cheap. Go help.


It's not that easy and you know it.

How does one single person on the ground combat alleged chemical warfare? To do that, you need all kinds of specialized equipment, troops, intel satellites, etc..

Those are the kinds of things that probably very few armies in the world have. America is one of them. If we are in a position to stop the brutal killing, we should.

It could be as simple as giving the gear and intelligence to the anti-Assad troops on the ground, firing Tomahawks at all suspected chemical sites, and establishing a no-fly zone over Syria.
 
2013-08-27 11:05:29 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: I'm not happy with the idea of another war, but in this case I'm okay with it.  Verifiable use of serious chemical weapons is just kind of one of those lines that once crossed a strongly worded letter doesn't cover.  There's a bunch of shiatholes that treat their people just as badly, and that's horrible too, but some genies you have to smack a biatch for letting out of the bottle.


Fine.  But why does it have to be the US?  We've already got our hands full with 2 wars that WE started with no viable end in sight.  The gov't is slowly going broke, to make matters worse.  Unless we have no intention on paying our trillions dollar debt.

I actually saw McCain on the news this morning saying something to the effect of, "The US will look like a bunch of chumps if we don't do something".  Really?!  Maybe we should not have drawn a line for them to cross.  Then we wouldn't have to make good on our threats.
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report