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  
•       •       •

3693 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:09 AM (1 year 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 02:23:21 PM

Ranger Joe: Nadie_AZ: 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.

One of these might come in handy...

[600x450 from http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/cameraflage/DC_2005/aberdeen/2431 davycrockettnuke.jpg image 600x450]


Got involved down here near Point Lookout, did ya?

My kids (and me and hubby) enjoyed the storylines that had our homes decimated. Brought just a bit more realism into the game for us-which led to many discussions about war, morality, dystopia, etc.
Plus, I have a slight claim to fame for F3, as my sister was the voice for the young Amata. Ok, reeeeealy slight.

I've always had Dr. Suess' outlook on power. If you have it, you should wield it for good-anywhere and everywhere that need be. I saw the failure to just kill Saddam the first time (when we had UN approval) as something we owed Iraq- considering we put him there, gave him all the war toys, etc. in the first place.
That Rumsfeld and Cheney and cronies didn't have a plan as to what to do afterwards the second time around-well, they didn't need one-except for where to stash their cash. We could have (as well as the UN) done a better job the first time around, and displaced the regime, but we didn't. So more innocents had to pay the ultimate price for our evil intentions the second time around. I think it was totally unjustified with Bush II, and Afghanistan was a bigger clusterf*ck than we could have imagined at the time.
I was all for going into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. I'm not even sure today if he was directly responsible for 9/11, but he was a rogue leader with a lot of money and a ton of followers. Plus, fark the Taliban.
I guess in the end we could have/should have done a better job there, too, but I think history will show that it was never the intent of our leaders to really help the people in that conflict, or any conflict in recent memory with 'boots on the ground.'. Maybe WWII... does anyone really think we shouldn't have helped stop the Nazis? What we did to Japan was reprehensible. Possibly necessary in the grand scheme of history- not to save American soldiers' lives, but to ultimately lead to policies against such weaponry in the future.  Maybe that's just my ingrained American exceptionalism kicking in- but I think if the atomic bomb was invented and deployed by other countries, the world would have been in for a whole lot more sh*t.
I also took flak from fellow libtards for supporting intervention in Kosovo-also handled badly- how long should a trial take? Same thing with Somalia. We tried. But the image of a couple of dead bodies being desecrated turned the populace's stomach...so bye bye. Now they have pirates, and Dr.s without borders are getting out...

I blame media. What the hell does war look like? It looks like armfuls of children dead from a deadly gas another human used to kill them. It looks like the little naked Vietnamese girl running down the road in abject fear while her skin burns from napalm. It looks like soldiers being pissed on, torn apart and dragged through the streets, coming home and killing themselves. It looks like shriveled corpses of still living Jewish prisoners, smells like burning flesh from the ovens. It's ugly. No amount of drafting the kid down the street, or special taxes for war will get the populace to say enough is enough- and we will all take care of the evil that will not comply. We need to have our eyes opened. We need to see the devastation. We need that dose of reality that the powers that be don't want us to see. The veil must be removed before we can stop being complacent pawns of those that hold the most cash, the most power.
Until then, it's just pissing in the wind.

Re-reads own screed...yikes!
Well, hello NSA! Nothing to see here...


/tl;dr war sux but so many are dying wtf humans?
 
2013-08-27 02:26:03 PM

umad: 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.

I suppose you are ready to donate your entire paycheck to the cause and then suit up to go over there to kick some ass. No? Then STFU.

You are no different than the European assholes who are talking big but won't back it up. It is pretty easy to give up lives and money when they aren't your own.


umad?

Apparently, I am not allowed to have an opinion on anything unless I completely devote myself 100% to a cause.  Good to know.

It's kind of funny to see the crazy ass leaps of logic people take.  I guess that's what the internet does to people.
 
2013-08-27 02:31:06 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-27 02:31:23 PM

TheMysticS: /tl;dr war sux but so many are dying wtf humans?


Yes, but this wouldn't really be a war in the conventional sense of the word. What would the conditions for winning exactly be? The last "war" was a joke because it was a "war" against terrorism. From the get-go, it was an unwinnable war. That is like saying we should go to war with evil. The end goal should be to prevent atrocities from happening. Going to "war" isn't going to stop that from occurring.
 
2013-08-27 02:31:57 PM

Hiro-ACiD: Kerry? You mean the "liberal" married to the Ketchup fortune? He must have been shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out all this immoral activity is taking place..

Also, lighten up on the Khan, dude could skateboard like a mofo.


I heard he also liked San Dimas, especially the sports stores.
 
2013-08-27 02:34:26 PM

sign_of_Zeta: Apparently, I am not allowed to have an opinion on anything unless I completely devote myself 100% to a cause.


Well your opinion means jack-shiat to me when you are devoting yourself 0% to a cause. Talk is cheap. Man up and join the service or STFU.
 
2013-08-27 02:38:01 PM

umad: sign_of_Zeta: Apparently, I am not allowed to have an opinion on anything unless I completely devote myself 100% to a cause.

Well your opinion means jack-shiat to me when you are devoting yourself 0% to a cause. Talk is cheap. Man up and join the service or STFU.


Fortunately, I don't care what you think of my opinion.  So have fun with being completely insane.

Also, I know you don't care about my opinion, but you may want to seek out some mental help.  Angry outbursts like yours aren't very good for one's emotional and physical well-being.
 
2013-08-27 02:45:12 PM
0bama = bush 2.0 and yet liberals don't seem to care at all
 
2013-08-27 02:51:49 PM
Yeah, I gotta say, listening to the U.S. lecture other countries about killing innocent people gets no more than a snicker from me anymore.

And I'm an American.
 
2013-08-27 03:01:38 PM

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.


If we were to appoint you President for purposes of this issue, tell us how you'd proceed.
 
2013-08-27 03:19:34 PM

jjorsett: 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.

If we were to appoint you President for purposes of this issue, tell us how you'd proceed.


Well, I will be the first to admit I am not qualified, but the best option in my opinion (not a great option, but the best) is to let other world leaders be in charge of any command decisions in regards to action.  Provide U.S. support as long as no U.S. troops hit the ground (the U.S. would be seen as conquerors.  Sure, we will still probably get blamed but no reason to make it easier.)  Try to gather enough support for UN security council resolution (yes, I know Russia will probably veto it. Make them veto it and take a clear stance.)  If the UN resolution does not pass, let other countries take the lead.  Provide support.

Yes, basically the Libya strategy.  Yes, it is far from perfect.  Yes, it may not solve things.  But taking no action is about as morally reprehensible a thing that we can do, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Secular Humanist.

I would make a terrible President.  I would probably end up despising myself for making decisions that led to the deaths of soldiers and some innocent people.  But in the end I would try to make the most morally correct decision I could.
 
2013-08-27 03:21:34 PM

ChuDogg: tirob: For those of you who say that the Syrian government would be above using chemical weapons in this war, I thought I'd leave this here. It's a story about an attack by Syrian government forces on a place called Saraqeb, near Aleppo in northern Syria, on April 29 of this year.

Is that the one the UN investigators said was used by the rebels?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-po nt e-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.h tml


I don't think so, but I wouldn't like to say for sure based on anything written in the article you linked, which refers to "two...alleged attacks that took place in Aleppo in March [2013] and Homs in December [2012];" I also infer from the piece that other chemical attacks were said to have occurred.  The incident I discussed in my earlier post happened *near* Aleppo on *April 29* 2013, only a week before the article you linked was published, and I doubt that one week would have been enough time for the commission of which Ms. Del Ponte was a member to come to a credible conclusion about what happened at Saraqeb.

There is some evidence in this article

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-says-informed-u-n-chief-more-syria-18225 87 61.html?.tsrc=Warhol

that the UN commission did not even know about the Saraqeb incident until late May 2013.

Also from my link:  "Earlier this month, Carla Del Ponte, a member of a U.N. inquiry commission looking at allegations of war crimes in Syria, said the panel had gathered testimony from casualties and medical staff indicating that rebel forces had used the banned nerve agent sarin.  But the commission, which is separate from Sellstrom's chemical weapons investigation team, quickly issued a statement distancing itself from Del Ponte's remarks, saying it has reached no conclusions on whether any side in the Syrian war has used chemical weapons."
 
2013-08-27 03:24:56 PM

tirob: Amos Quito: 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.


It seems clear that chemical weapons were used - the question is by who?
g

Wanted to give you credit where it is due for apparently changing your mind on the issue of whether chemical weapons were used.  My recollection is that you were still skeptical on this point a few days ago.

And to flatter you further, I am going to repost here something I posted on an earlier thread.  Another page from your playbook.

For those of you who say that the Syrian government would be above using chemical weapons in this war, I thought I'd leave this here.  It's a story about an attack by Syrian government forces on a place called Saraqeb, near Aleppo in northern Syria, on April 29 of this year.  Local people claimed that during the attack, personnel in a government helicopter dropped bombs that contained a poisonous gas.  Eight local people were taken to a nearby hospital around this time, all apparently suffering from nausea and breathing problems.  One of them died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22551892

There was a followup to this.  Blood and urine samples from five of the hospital patients were taken to a lab maintained by the DGA, the French military's arms-buying office.  Chemists in the lab said that the results of their tests indicated the presence of sarin in the urine of one patient and in the blood of two others.  I can't find this story in English, so everyone please pardon my French.  I'll translate.



Seems like Farker ChuDogg slapped that one out of the sky, tirob.

Here's his link, in case you missed it.


What's the saying? "Truth is the first casualty of war"? Something like that.

Here's the deal: We, the US, are going on a Syrian Adventure. Not because you or I want it, not because The People of the united States want it, not because AssadCo used any chemical weapons - no, not for any of those reasons.

We're going because Israel, Netanyahu, AIPAC and the monied interests of the Central Banking Cartels that hold the strings of the media, both Republican and Democrat parties - AND have the leaders of virtually all Western nations by the balls - because THEY want it.

There is no "proof" necessary for this international lynch mob. This is not about "justice" or "doing what's right", it never has been.

Apparently China and Russia haven't signed on. What that will mean, I don't know.

In any case, I suggest you fill your gas tanks, fasten your seat belt and hold on tight.

This could be one hell of a ride.
 
2013-08-27 03:25:38 PM

sign_of_Zeta: Fortunately, I don't care what you think of my opinion. So have fun with being completely insane.


You are the one suggesting we do the same shiat that has caused us nothing but trouble in the region for the last 60 farking years. YOU are the insane one here.

So are you going to get off of your fat ass and join the Army or just sit here complaining like a little biatch? If you are so gung-ho about us doing something, then farking DO something.
 
2013-08-27 03:45:49 PM

the money is in the banana stand: TheMysticS: /tl;dr war sux but so many are dying wtf humans?

Yes, but this wouldn't really be a war in the conventional sense of the word. What would the conditions for winning exactly be? The last "war" was a joke because it was a "war" against terrorism. From the get-go, it was an unwinnable war. That is like saying we should go to war with evil. The end goal should be to prevent atrocities from happening. Going to "war" isn't going to stop that from occurring.


Valid point...and I agree. Prevent atrocities. At least until we lose the us vs. them mentality. One can always hope.
 
2013-08-27 03:53:06 PM

umad: sign_of_Zeta: Fortunately, I don't care what you think of my opinion. So have fun with being completely insane.

You are the one suggesting we do the same shiat that has caused us nothing but trouble in the region for the last 60 farking years. YOU are the insane one here.

So are you going to get off of your fat ass and join the Army or just sit here complaining like a little biatch? If you are so gung-ho about us doing something, then farking DO something.


I don't think any action on our part will do anything to stabilize the area.  In fact, I doubt anything can.  The middle east is too profitable for many and too full of ethnic groups with disdain for each other to ever be peaceful in my lifetime.  All I hope they achieve is stopping a military from gassing their own citizens indiscriminately.

As for your ridiculous argument that I must join  the military to have an opinion, I have done as much as I should given the skills I possess.  I have neither a body the military would accept nor skill sets that would be useful in this situation (no intel experience, no relevant foreign language skills, not foreign relations experience).  What I had was money to donate to charities helping refugees and an opinion I provided to my congressmen.

Also, I am actually a little worried how angry a complete stranger's opinion on the internet is making you feel.  You should probably shut down the computer for a while.
 
2013-08-27 04:11:57 PM

sign_of_Zeta: I have neither a body the military would accept nor skill sets that would be useful in this situation (no intel experience, no relevant foreign language skills, not foreign relations experience).


I have some great news for you then! The military likes to take in uneducated kids straight out of high school and then train them up to give them the skill sets that would be useful in this situation. They will also help your fat ass get in shape. I'm sure your ignorance and obesity wouldn't be a problem for them. So, tough guy, you don't have any excuse. I'm sure you will come up with some retarded rationalization as to why you shouldn't have to lift a finger though.

sign_of_Zeta: What I had was money to donate to charities helping refugees and an opinion I provided to my congressmen.


Yes, an opinion that people other than you need to drop what they are doing and go die in a shiathole on the other side of the world. My opinion (which is just as valid as yours) is that you should go die in a shiathole on the other side of the world.

And you are god damned right that I'm angry. We have been doing it your way for the last ten farking years. It has gotten us nothing but dead soldiers, debt, and butthurt from the people we are "helping". All of you war-hawks are spineless scum. Every last one of you.
 
2013-08-27 04:20:18 PM
The Syrian people will be thankful if we topple Assad.  We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
 
2013-08-27 04:25:01 PM

dittybopper: Syria calls Kerry a liar, says, "They never used chemical weapons in Cambodia at Christmas time"

Maybe they did use it, and that's why the false memory was "seared" into his brain.


I think you meant to say seared... SEARED... into his brain.
 
2013-08-27 04:32:35 PM

TheMysticS: the money is in the banana stand: TheMysticS: /tl;dr war sux but so many are dying wtf humans?

Yes, but this wouldn't really be a war in the conventional sense of the word. What would the conditions for winning exactly be? The last "war" was a joke because it was a "war" against terrorism. From the get-go, it was an unwinnable war. That is like saying we should go to war with evil. The end goal should be to prevent atrocities from happening. Going to "war" isn't going to stop that from occurring.

Valid point...and I agree. Prevent atrocities. At least until we lose the us vs. them mentality. One can always hope.


We think of war waged uniformly. Modern warfare is anything but this. How it is portrayed in the media is going to war with Syria. We wouldn't be going to war with Syria, considering the people we are trying to save and protect from the CW are in fact Syrians. For us to have any sort of logical discussion with respect to action, objectives need to be established clearly. If by removing Assad will stop the use of CW, then the objective needs to be to remove Assad from power. If that will not stop the use of CW, what will? Secondly, after the objective is met, will another problem likely emerge and how do you deal with that? What is the timeframe, cost, and risk of the operation?

It isn't as easy as this side versus that side. There are a lot of sides each with their own agendas. Sometimes doing nothing is a better alternative than doing anything, because doing anything may make the situation you are trying to prevent escalate. If we remove Assad from power, is the next guy in line even worse? Instead of trying to solve all of the worlds problems, it may be most logical to do nothing but offer asylum and aid instead of get involved militarily.
 
2013-08-27 04:33:07 PM
If Obama ignores this, then the chocolate will grow and take over the screen, no matter how many striped candies he has.

/Sorry, what?
 
2013-08-27 04:34:36 PM
If Obama ignores this, then the chocolate will grow and take over the screen, no matter how many striped and wrapped candies he has.

/sorry, what?
 
2013-08-27 04:37:03 PM
If Obama ignores this, then the chocolate will grow and take over the screen, no matter how many striped and wrapped and speckled candies he has.

/going for broke in trying to cover the double post by making it look like I meant to do that.
 
2013-08-27 04:39:53 PM

quansem: If Obama ignores this, then the chocolate will grow and take over the screen, no matter how many striped and wrapped and speckled candies he has.

/going for broke in trying to cover the double post by making it look like I meant to do that.


In keeping with the rules of the game, you would have reposted that only after someone posted. Chocolates only grow once a move has been made and are not based on time.

/snark
 
2013-08-27 04:41:23 PM

jshine: The Syrian people will be thankful if we topple Assad.  We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.



Yeah. Okay.

So, what with the Israelis think?

What shall be done with the Jew-hating Mooselimb fundy fanatics that will fill the power vacuum?


/Existential fret
 
2013-08-27 04:43:17 PM

jshine: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.


Bravo!
 
2013-08-27 04:48:50 PM

snocone: John Kerry?
Oh, you mean,,,"
That was not the last time John Kerry was to be of use to our enemies either. During John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, he recounted stories from the "The Winter Soldier Investigation". That event was organized, in part, by Vietnam Veterans against the War, and it featured large amounts of fraudulent testimony from  "fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam Veterans". Kerry repeated their lies in front of the world and accused our troops of torture, rape, and acting like the hordes of Genghis Kahn among other things. Kerry's speech caught the ear of the Vietcong, who actually played his testimony to our soldiers in POW camps in an effort to break their will. Then there was the time Kerry joined  traitorous anti-war protestor Jane Fonda in theback of a pick-up truck in order to speak out against the war, Kerry's medals, which hepretended to throw away, and the atrocities that Kerry admitted he committed in Vietnam (which makes you wonder if Lyndie England could run for President in 30 years). Understandably, John Kerry doesn't spend a lot of time talking about this period of his life on the campaign trail, but he should be deeply ashamed of his actions.
Later in life, John Kerry became a big man in Massachusetts politics."

Yea, that one.
What a farking joke on ya'll to bring that prick into the light.
And you people let him speak in public, claim to be a caring human and generally go about all that gooberment chit.
WOW! just WOW!


Speaking of dishonest people, putting words in blue so people will think they are links, without giving anyone actual links, is a dick move.

I'm assuming you deceptively tried to give the impressions that you have links to back you up without actually giving any, because you know you can't.

But, hey, maybe you just had an HTLM failure or something , so let's give you a second chance.  Back up with actual links everything you just said.  Assume for the sack of argument that we think you're full of crap and won't believe anything you posted until you prove it.
 
2013-08-27 05:23:26 PM

snocone: It is an insult to every "real" American.


You realize when you talk about "real Americans" in the sense that people who don't share your political views aren't "real" Americans, we laugh at how pathetic you are, right?

Or were you being sarcastic?  Were those sarcasm quotes?  Poe's Law and all that.

Either way, keep it up --- you're hilarious!
 
2013-08-27 05:25:40 PM
sign_of_Zeta
seeing children struggling to breathe after a chemical attack and knowing countless more died is something that we, as not just Americans, but citizens of the world, cannot let occur if we want to live in a just world.

Your issue is not the scale of the killing, but how it looks. The perfect middle-class midwesterner- the only thing you're really against is breaking decorum.
 
2013-08-27 05:39:46 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: Saraqeb

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22551892

Seems like Farker ChuDogg slapped that one out of the sky, tirob.

Here's his link, in case you missed it.


I not only didn't miss his ChuDogg's link and his post, I responded to it, at 3:21.  It's the post right above yours.  I do not believe that Carla Del Ponte was referring to the Saraqeb incident when she made her statement, for the reasons that I cited in my response.  Furthermore, and in any case, the UN commission of which Ms. Del Ponte was a member quickly distanced itself from her claims, as I pointed out in my post.

Amos Quito: Democrat parties


Is that you, Rush?

Amos Quito: Central Banking Cartels


I googled this phrase and found ads for a bunch of bullion dealers.  Funny how they all accept Federal Reserve notes, and negotiable instruments for Federal Reserve notes, for payment.
 
2013-08-27 05:48:31 PM

RanDomino: sign_of_Zeta
seeing children struggling to breathe after a chemical attack and knowing countless more died is something that we, as not just Americans, but citizens of the world, cannot let occur if we want to live in a just world.

Your issue is not the scale of the killing, but how it looks. The perfect middle-class midwesterner- the only thing you're really against is breaking decorum.


Honestly, I have been arguing for this since Assad started attacking his own people.   What Bush/Cheney did was terrible but that shouldn't stop us from acting on the suffering of others because we don't like how it negatively affects us.
 
2013-08-27 05:52:36 PM

TheMysticS: Ranger Joe: Nadie_AZ: 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.

One of these might come in handy...

[600x450 from http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y81/cameraflage/DC_2005/aberdeen/2431 davycrockettnuke.jpg image 600x450]

Got involved down here near Point Lookout, did ya?

My kids (and me and hubby) enjoyed the storylines that had our homes decimated. Brought just a bit more realism into the game for us-which led to many discussions about war, morality, dystopia, etc.
Plus, I have a slight claim to fame for F3, as my sister was the voice for the young Amata. Ok, reeeeealy slight.

I've always had Dr. Suess' outlook on power. If you have it, you should wield it for good-anywhere and everywhere that need be. I saw the failure to just kill Saddam the first time (when we had UN approval) as something we owed Iraq- considering we put him there, gave him all the war toys, etc. in the first place.
That Rumsfeld and Cheney and cronies didn't have a plan as to what to do afterwards the second time around-well, they didn't need one-except for where to stash their cash. We could have (as well as the UN) done a better job the first time around, and displaced the regime, but we didn't. So more innocents had to pay the ultimate price for our evil intentions the second time around. I think it was totally unjustified with Bush II, and Afghanistan was a bigger clusterf*ck than we could have imagined at the time.
I was all for going into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. I'm not even sure today if he was directly responsible for 9/11, but he was a rogue leader with a lot of money and a ton of followers. Plus, fark the Talib ...


This is what I imagined you looking like when I got halfway through that.
 
2013-08-27 06:02:44 PM

sign_of_Zeta: Honestly, I have been arguing for this since Assad started attacking his own people. What Bush/Cheney did was terrible but that shouldn't stop us from acting on the suffering of others because we don't like how it negatively affects us.


Just when I thought you couldn't get any more retarded you post this gem. I wouldn't have even bothered replying to you if I had known that your support of the war was based solely on partisan politics.

What Bush/Cheney did is exactly what you are farking saying that we should do now. Hussein did the same thing that you are accusing Assad of doing. His actions were also used as justification for getting us into a war, just like you are doing right now.
 
2013-08-27 06:02:57 PM

nosferatublue: Plus, fark the Talib ...

This is what I imagined you looking like when I got halfway through that.


Imagine posttraumaticstresssyndromedog.gif.
 
2013-08-27 06:20:32 PM

sign_of_Zeta: umad: sign_of_Zeta: Fortunately, I don't care what you think of my opinion. So have fun with being completely insane.

You are the one suggesting we do the same shiat that has caused us nothing but trouble in the region for the last 60 farking years. YOU are the insane one here.

So are you going to get off of your fat ass and join the Army or just sit here complaining like a little biatch? If you are so gung-ho about us doing something, then farking DO something.

Also, I am actually a little worried how angry a complete stranger's opinion on the internet is making you feel.  You should probably shut down the computer for a while.


If it matters to you, umad does this to everybody, in every thread he posts in.  I would've said "Don't take it personally," but that advice fortunately seems to be unnecessary.

I'm no psychologist, but it's clear he's been very angry for a long time now.
 
2013-08-27 06:28:00 PM

nosferatublue: nosferatublue: Plus, fark the Talib ...

This is what I imagined you looking like when I got halfway through that.

Imagine posttraumaticstresssyndromedog.gif.


Gee, thanks!
 
2013-08-27 06:41:59 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


Neither England nor France wanted any part of the Union. Even they wouldn't casually start a war with a mechanized nation with a veteran army, fighting on its home soil, and with a navy up to the fight. England was very aware it would probably cost them Canada and might lead to an American invasion of the home islands -- the American army was very Irish, and the potato famine was going on. France couldn't really afford a long distance war, and knew it. They also remembered how quickly the US rolled through Mexico previously.

This is why both countries were waiting for the other one to declare war first.
 
2013-08-27 07:01:04 PM

ciberido: If it matters to you, umad does this to everybody, in every thread he posts in.


Not to everybody. Only to the mentally retarded who escape from their cages and post nonsense on the internet.
 
2013-08-27 07:06:52 PM

neversubmit: How do we know it was Assad that used the chemical weapons?


Because Joe Biden said so!
 
2013-08-27 07:12:17 PM

Bong Hits For Mohammed: neversubmit: How do we know it was Assad that used the chemical weapons?

Because Joe Biden said so!



Give that man a T-Bird!


/The thought of Biden being president makes me pray
//For Obama
///Every.Damn.Day
 
2013-08-27 08:42:48 PM

the money is in the banana stand: TheMysticS: the money is in the banana stand: TheMysticS: /tl;dr war sux but so many are dying wtf humans?

Yes, but this wouldn't really be a war in the conventional sense of the word. What would the conditions for winning exactly be? The last "war" was a joke because it was a "war" against terrorism. From the get-go, it was an unwinnable war. That is like saying we should go to war with evil. The end goal should be to prevent atrocities from happening. Going to "war" isn't going to stop that from occurring.

Valid point...and I agree. Prevent atrocities. At least until we lose the us vs. them mentality. One can always hope.

We think of war waged uniformly. Modern warfare is anything but this. How it is portrayed in the media is going to war with Syria. We wouldn't be going to war with Syria, considering the people we are trying to save and protect from the CW are in fact Syrians. For us to have any sort of logical discussion with respect to action, objectives need to be established clearly. If by removing Assad will stop the use of CW, then the objective needs to be to remove Assad from power. If that will not stop the use of CW, what will? Secondly, after the objective is met, will another problem likely emerge and how do you deal with that? What is the timeframe, cost, and risk of the operation?

It isn't as easy as this side versus that side. There are a lot of sides each with their own agendas. Sometimes doing nothing is a better alternative than doing anything, because doing anything may make the situation you are trying to prevent escalate. If we remove Assad from power, is the next guy in line even worse? Instead of trying to solve all of the worlds problems, it may be most logical to do nothing but offer asylum and aid instead of get involved militarily.


Yeah, I don't see things as black and white, either. Too bad media hype and the absence of critical thinking in general paints things this way.

Your points are valid as well, of course. I would suppose the administration has had the most knowledgeable people calculating which scenario would play out (to the best of their educated guesses) if we did A B or C.
At least I hope they do. Didn't seem like it last administration.
 
2013-08-27 08:43:39 PM
Or maybe they ignored them.
 
2013-08-28 08:46:40 AM
Wonder if they are going to pretend hang Assad like they did Hussein.
 
Displayed 43 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