Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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
    More: Interesting, Ghengis Khan, Associated Press photographer, chemical warfares, Christmastime, Doctors Without Borders, Damascus, chemical weapons  
•       •       •

3769 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:09 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-08-27 09:42:15 AM  
More reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, who helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with sarin nerve gas.
 
2013-08-27 09:50:00 AM  
Sarin is just bug spray for humans.

Call me when they've got nukes.
 
2013-08-27 09:51:36 AM  
"They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Syrians are bad ass, man.
 
2013-08-27 10:04:13 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-27 10:11:16 AM  
Kerry-Go back to Skull and Bones and jerk off in a coffin. Take Bush with you for old times.
 
2013-08-27 10:11:49 AM  
Did he say it "Jenjis Khan".

I love when he does that.
 
2013-08-27 10:11:50 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-27 10:15:16 AM  
John Kerry has been and always will be an idiot.  Watch him convince the other idiot in the white house to drag us into another stupid war.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 10:16:57 AM  

I_C_Weener: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Syrians are bad ass, man.


It's the Middle East, that's a sporting event there.
 
2013-08-27 10:18:10 AM  
World War III here we come...

...or is that here we go?
 
2013-08-27 10:18:28 AM  
Looks like you Americans are getting involved in this whether the populace wants it or not.
 
2013-08-27 10:18:44 AM  
Ghengis Khan farts in your general direction.

/I've got nothing
 
2013-08-27 10:19:00 AM  

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


You mean Obamacare?
 
2013-08-27 10:19:28 AM  

I_C_Weener: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Syrians are bad ass, man.


It's not that uncommon or bad ass or hardcore.  It's been done before.
There was this one torture method used in Africa where they would stick an air pump up your rectum and pump you full of air until something burst.
 
2013-08-27 10:19:40 AM  
atomicsam.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-27 10:20:01 AM  
And the thousand dead in Egypt is reminiscent of St. Francis of Assisi. That's why they are being rewarded by a billion dollars.
 
2013-08-27 10:21:23 AM  
pol pot
pol pot
pol pot
 
2013-08-27 10:21:34 AM  
Obama's Bluff

"Syria was not an issue that affected the U.S. national interest until Obama declared a red line. It escalated in importance at that point not because Syria is critical to the United States, but because the credibility of its stated limits are of vital importance. Obama's problem is that the majority of the American people oppose military intervention, Congress is not fully behind an intervention and those now rooting the United States on are not bearing the bulk of the military burden -- nor will they bear the criticism that will follow the inevitable civilian casualties, accidents and misdeeds that are part of war regardless of the purity of the intent.

The question therefore becomes what the United States and the new coalition of the willing will do if the red line has been crossed. The fantasy is that a series of airstrikes, destroying only chemical weapons, will be so perfectly executed that no one will be killed except those who deserve to die. But it is hard to distinguish a man's soul from 10,000 feet. There will be deaths, and the United States will be blamed for them."
 
2013-08-27 10:21:41 AM  

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


Just remember it is not about the voters it is about the military industrial complex, think of all the jobs that will be lost if we stop the wars.
 
2013-08-27 10:21:48 AM  
John Kerry is lying?

shocking
 
2013-08-27 10:22:55 AM  
The thing about Kerry is that he will be gung ho about going into Syria and then will be against it 1 year later.  He is much like the Clintons in that regard.

Obama has learned the hard way that you can't just vote 'present' once President.
 
2013-08-27 10:23:53 AM  
This will not end up in a war. Maybe a few drones strikes and some intel support, but that's it.
 
2013-08-27 10:25:07 AM  
Assad is in Russia. Good luck killing him.
 
2013-08-27 10:25:22 AM  

neversubmit: World War III here we come...

...or is that here we go?


img211.imageshack.us

you know, I never understood the President Obama in Joker face before.... Maybe they knew something we didnt.
 
2013-08-27 10:26:21 AM  

I_C_Weener: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Syrians are bad ass, man.


Are they talking about the Mexican Cartels?
 
2013-08-27 10:27:33 AM  

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

I love when he does that.


yeah, i was wondering if he went with Ghengis Khan or Jenjis Khan.

The Economist has a practical take on this issue:

America's credibility depends on intervening. Mr Obama made no response to a previous claim of chemical-weapons use. It seems likely that Mr Assad was testing the water to see if he could get away with a bigger one. If he is allowed to, nobody will take American threats seriously, at least while Mr Obama is president.

This paper believes that America is generally a force for good in the world. If Mr Obama does not keep his promises, it will no longer be much of a force at all.


Calling us out with that last line.  Does Obama and Kerry want to preside over an America that isn't a force at all?
 
2013-08-27 10:29:29 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-27 10:29:35 AM  

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.


I don't want us involved either... but I think it isn't the rebels we are boo hoo-ing about. It is the innocent civilians, the mothers, fathers and children, that lack an advocate for their well-being.
 
2013-08-27 10:29:38 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-27 10:29:46 AM  
images.quickblogcast.com
Wanted for questioning
 
2013-08-27 10:30:40 AM  
Syria is now preparing their swift boats for a counterattack.
 
2013-08-27 10:31:38 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: neversubmit: World War III here we come...

...or is that here we go?

[319x158 from http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7164/te7b.jpg image 319x158]

you know, I never understood the President Obama in Joker face before.... Maybe they knew something we didnt.


No, no they did not.
 
2013-08-27 10:31:53 AM  
If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.
 
2013-08-27 10:32:02 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-27 10:32:51 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: 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.


How does that make any sense at all?

If you want to focus on improving your country, be like Sweden or something, and tell the entire world you don't give a shiat about their wars and disagreements for a few decades.
 
2013-08-27 10:33:25 AM  
We didn't intervene in Rwanda.

We haven't intervened in Darfur.

Why in God's name would we go anywhere near Syria?  They're a Russian proxy, let Putin sort it out.
 
2013-08-27 10:35:05 AM  

SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.


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.
 
2013-08-27 10:35:13 AM  

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.
 
2013-08-27 10:35:14 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.


Saddam gassed his own people, and killed 100's of thousands of his citizens. So you were okay with the Iraq war then?
 
2013-08-27 10:36:00 AM  
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
 
2013-08-27 10:36:12 AM  
I wonder if this whole situation would be playing out differently if Israel hadn't bombed the Syrian nuclear facility back in 2007. If Syria had nuclear weapons there is no way Obama would even consider air strikes.
 
2013-08-27 10:37:13 AM  

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.
 
2013-08-27 10:37:30 AM  
 
2013-08-27 10:38:11 AM  
How do we know it was Assad that used the chemical weapons?
 
2013-08-27 10:38:29 AM  

SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.



Iran, despite being mean to its people (like half the countries in this world) does not deserve the treatment they have been getting. Quit painting them as bastards.
Say, didn't the US give Saddam chem weapons and tell them where to use them against Iran? Yeah screw off jack.
 
2013-08-27 10:39:09 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-27 10:40:15 AM  

SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.


Why is that our problem?
 
2013-08-27 10:40:31 AM  

neversubmit: No, no they did not.


If he puts boots on the ground in a civil war and we side with a force that are eating the still beating hearts of their enemies..

Well he just wants to watch the world burn.

I told everyone that "red line in the sand" line was going to bite us in the arse.
 
2013-08-27 10:41:02 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: . 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.


It's not that we don't care, it's just that we're convinced that any intervention will do little to stem the death of innocents. It might stop them from dying to chemical weapons, but I don't see how dying to rockets, gunfire, etc. is in any way preferable.
 
2013-08-27 10:41:05 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.


So we should kill the "rebels" then?
 
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.
 
2013-08-27 11:07:20 AM  

Sargun: 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?


Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?
 
2013-08-27 11:09:31 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 the other party is in office.

FTFY
 
2013-08-27 11:09:45 AM  

lohphat: 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.


Stop being big mac eating reality show watching  pussies with long beards and go do something about it.
 
2013-08-27 11:09:53 AM  

durbnpoisn: 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.


I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.
 
2013-08-27 11:11:26 AM  

fireclown: durbnpoisn: 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.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.


How so? Why didn't the USA directly help Saddam Hussein do just that?
 
2013-08-27 11:12:07 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: And getting involved won't make everything puppies and rainbows, but it would stop indiscriminate killing of innocents.


No it won't. It will just be American kids doing the killing. Again. And American people paying for it. Again and again and again. With interest.
 
2013-08-27 11:13:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


There isn't enough oil or other exploitable resources affecting corp profits to matter.
 
2013-08-27 11:14:18 AM  
Doesn't the military have 4 ships capable of firing Tomahawks near Syria?

It's time to call down the thunder on Assad. Let the anti-Assad fighters fight the war on the ground. We don't need American soldiers on the ground there.

Everything else is fair game, including drone strikes.
 
2013-08-27 11:14:25 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: 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.


So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.
 
2013-08-27 11:15:13 AM  

Whodat: 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.


The US it part of the UN. So the US would be part of a UN response. If US personnel are part of a UN response, like Bosnia, what then?
 
2013-08-27 11:15:39 AM  

ontariolightning: fireclown: durbnpoisn: 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.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.

How so? Why didn't the USA directly help Saddam Hussein do just that?


We are also the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon against an enemy.  Civilian targets no less.  Twice.
You can debate the signifigance and the need of that all you want.  But if that happened today, and/or it was another country that did it, there would be hell to pay.
 
2013-08-27 11:16:09 AM  

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


Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary
 
2013-08-27 11:16:32 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.


When did Congress (lead by either party) last have a spine and actually declare war since Korea?
 
2013-08-27 11:18:22 AM  
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.
 
2013-08-27 11:18:26 AM  

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

Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary


That's the point though, if they can't raise the funds through the general public, that ought to tell you something about the general feeling on a war. Would you rather we just do it off the books again and take it out of general tax dollars later?
 
2013-08-27 11:20:04 AM  

Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.


Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.
 
2013-08-27 11:20:28 AM  

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

Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary


Hey, War Bonds would be a step forward from the way we paid for the last 2 wars.
 
2013-08-27 11:20:48 AM  

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

Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary


Spanish-American War telephone tax
 
2013-08-27 11:22:04 AM  

Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.


Yes, because I know that rifles do not work on chemical weapons and that an American Citizen found to be fighting with rebels would cause an international incident, I feel no responsibility. Got it.

I am realistic about my importance on the Global Stage. My way to help is to voice my opinion to the government, and to give to charities helping refugees, which I have done.
 
2013-08-27 11:23:40 AM  

mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.


So, to keep the YSG from bombing the shiat out of people tosave them and let Syrians see to their own affairs?

Yes I would agree that there is a degree of moral responsibility there.
 
2013-08-27 11:23:43 AM  

mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.


This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.
 
2013-08-27 11:25:53 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.


Only killing people gets it up, dude. Why don't you ever consider that, huh?
 
2013-08-27 11:28:24 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.


Such as?  Let's get some options out on the table y'all!
 
2013-08-27 11:28:36 AM  

SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.


Has their Photoshop suite been upgraded?

Dammit. Who did that?
 
2013-08-27 11:31:11 AM  
If Kerry meant to reference the local villain in that part of the world, maybe he should have conjured up Hulagu Khan, Chingis's grandson, whose forces massacred most of the citizens of Baghdad, then one of the leading cities of the world, in 1258.

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

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.


"Chingis" seems to be a popular name in Kazakhstan and in surrounding areas, if this link is any indication.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Chingis/+
 
2013-08-27 11:32:31 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: 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?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?


Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.
 
2013-08-27 11:33:04 AM  

fireclown: UrukHaiGuyz: This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Such as?  Let's get some options out on the table y'all!


I'm not talking about Syria. It's a clusterf*ck we have no business intervening in any more than the Ottomans had a duty to intervene in the American Civil War. Disaster relief worldwide,however, could keep the military fully engaged and employed year round, if our actual goal was to relieve human suffering and save lives, as opposed to blowing sh*t up to enrich defense contractors in choice congressional districts.
 
2013-08-27 11:33:39 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.


Most people don't. People donate clothes and food to charity, their time to service projects, and provide disaster relief to others.

Honestly, peoples' goals should be to limit suffering. We can never stop all suffering, but allowing someone to commit mass murder via chemical weapons is about as high on the suffering chart as you can get.

BTW, it makes me laugh to think what Ned Stark would say to the guy using his name .
 
2013-08-27 11:33:58 AM  

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: 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?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.


"Limit".
 
2013-08-27 11:34:04 AM  

ontariolightning: fireclown: durbnpoisn: 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.

I had always believed that flagrant use of chemical or nuclear weaponry was universally considered to be a red line.

How so? Why didn't the USA directly help Saddam Hussein do just that?


If you don't think that the US can hold two opposing views then you're probably going to have a bad time.
 
2013-08-27 11:34:21 AM  

SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.


You're ignorant.
 
2013-08-27 11:35:05 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.


Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.
 

How do you fight someone who obviously does not give 2 shiats about people and uses WMDs on them? From Doctors Without Borders and forthcoming UN reports, there will most likely be proof coming that he did use chemical warfare.

And we are supposed to do nothing?
 
2013-08-27 11:35:51 AM  
And FTR, if we can intervene and stop chemical attacks without military intervention, I would want that 100%. I am not someone who wants more US troops in harm's way.
 
2013-08-27 11:36:31 AM  

spawn73: SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.

You're ignorant.


He might be a troll at times, but he's right in this case. American inaction will only embolden other assholes to mimic Assad's BS.
 
2013-08-27 11:36:38 AM  

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: 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?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.


Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.
 
2013-08-27 11:37:16 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: And FTR, if we can intervene and stop chemical attacks without military intervention, I would want that 100%. I am not someone who wants more US troops in harm's way.


Agree 100%.
 
2013-08-27 11:38:44 AM  

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...

i3.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-27 11:38:52 AM  
The US wouldn't be as interested in Syria if it was Obama and Congress who had to go do the fighting.
 
2013-08-27 11:40:19 AM  

I_C_Weener: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Syrians are bad ass, man.


♫ One of these things are not like the others.... ♫
 
2013-08-27 11:41:13 AM  

fireclown: UrukHaiGuyz: This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Such as?  Let's get some options out on the table y'all!


I don't think it's possible to end the violence but there are things that can be done to limit it.

The US doesn't have to pick sides. BSAB. Why not just implement a Berlin like wall? We've certainly learned a few things that were poorly done.

If we don't intervene - this is going to end in a genocide.
 
2013-08-27 11:41:25 AM  

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]


Is that a floor mounted Fat Man? Fallout was real! I knew it!
 
2013-08-27 11:41:37 AM  

mainstreet62: UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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.

So you don't actually feel a responsibility. You just want to sic America on someone so you can beat it to predator drones as they vaporize ambulances or whatever. Got it.

Ask Assad if he feels any responsibility for what he's done.

Americans have a responsibility to do what is right, or at least try to direct government to that end.

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.
 

How do you fight someone who obviously does not give 2 shiats about people and uses WMDs on them? From Doctors Without Borders and forthcoming UN reports, there will most likely be proof coming that he did use chemical warfare.

And we are supposed to do nothing?


Millions?

Been guzzling kerosene again?
 
2013-08-27 11:41:39 AM  

IamAwake: 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.


That analogy only works if you acknowledge that the COuntry sherrif is an arthritic, aging functionary who was put in place by powerful quasi-criminal groups specifically to be ineffectual.  He's basically Sylvester Stallone  in Copland
 
2013-08-27 11:42:39 AM  

sign_of_Zeta: UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: 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 Honestly, peoples' goals should be to limit suffering. We can never stop all suffering, but allowing someone to commit mass murder via chemical weapons is about as high on the suffering chart as you can get.

BTW, ...


What is the big deal about 'chemical weapons' ? Why is it better to allow mass murder using machetes or rifles or AK-47s or crack cocaine or tobacco?
 
2013-08-27 11:43:36 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Sargun: 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?

Funny how we can only bring ourselves to be "compassionate" when it involves dropping bombs on foreign soil. Dead is dead, and while chemical weapons are truly heinous, we have no stake in this. Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?

Why is that the only outcome considered for intervention. There are ways to intervene that limits the casualties.

Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.


Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.
 
2013-08-27 11:46:16 AM  

mainstreet62: UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got [deleted]

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.
 

How do you fight someone who ob ...


You don't even know that Assad did it. The last time an American secretary of state opened his big mouth about WMDs, he was lying. And you suddenly believe it this time?
 
2013-08-27 11:47:16 AM  

Ned Stark: Millions?

Been guzzling kerosene again?


Fine, tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

What's 1 or 2 orders of magnitude between homicidal dictators, I guess.
 
2013-08-27 11:47:45 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62:

This is all so much mealy-mouthed bullsh*t. If you are actually concerned with human suffering, there's a hell of a lot we could do without any sort of violence at all. You can't just pretend that the only time we have a duty to act (if you truly believe that statement) when it involves killing people on foreign soil.

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.
 
How do you fight someone who obviously does not give 2 shiats about people and uses WMDs on them? From Doctors Without Borders and forthcoming UN reports, there will most likely be proof coming that he did use chemical warfare.

And we are supposed to do nothing?


I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, were not charitable. We're talking about the actions of the United States, though. And yes, as sad as it is, we do nothing, because the fallout from us intervening puts the responsibility on our shoulders for the continuing outcome. We can't just pop in, blow sh*t up, and get out with no repercussions, and many of the people we'd be saving (including innocents) bear us no good will, and would resent our trying to shape their future for them.
 
2013-08-27 11:48:43 AM  

justaguy516: mainstreet62: UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got [deleted]

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.
 

How do you fight someone who ob ...

You don't even know that Assad did it. The last time an American secretary of state opened his big mouth about WMDs, he was lying. And you suddenly believe it this time?


Way to cut off the rest of my post, idiot. I suggest you reread it.
 
2013-08-27 11:49:49 AM  

mainstreet62: Ned Stark: Millions?

Been guzzling kerosene again?

Fine, tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

What's 1 or 2 orders of magnitude between homicidal dictators, I guess.


A way for bloodthirsty interventionists to turn imps into daemons.
 
2013-08-27 11:50:12 AM  
How's that Nobel Peace Prize doing?
 
2013-08-27 11:50:25 AM  

mainstreet62: justaguy516: mainstreet62: UrukHaiGuyz: mainstreet62: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: You know, I know that we got [deleted]

Did I ever say that in my post? I would like to think of myself as philanthropic. Unfortunately, the math sucks at time. Do you kill hundreds of Assad's troops to save millions, or do you not kill any and watch Assad slaughter a big piece of the population? There is no 3rd choice that avoids killing. None. Zero.
 

How do you fight someone who ob ...

You don't even know that Assad did it. The last time an American secretary of state opened his big mouth about WMDs, he was lying. And you suddenly believe it this time?

Way to cut off the rest of my post, idiot. I suggest you reread it.


The most likely will be proof coming part? Yeah, I found that funny.
 
2013-08-27 11:50:36 AM  

RexTalionis: More reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, who helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with sarin nerve gas.


Oh no. This is the 10th time I have seen this libe. Is this the new Democrat talking point of the day? A better one would be that no matter how much we tried to help the Middle East the Middle East would just turn around and bite us no matter who was president. Either Genghis Khan the place or stay out of there.

/partisan politics suck donkey balls
 
2013-08-27 11:51:08 AM  
Bontesla:
I don't think it's possible to end the violence but there are things that can be done to limit it.
...Why not just implement a Berlin like wall?

i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-08-27 11:52:17 AM  

Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.


Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?
 
2013-08-27 11:53:09 AM  
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!
 
2013-08-27 11:53:11 AM  
You guys are all missing the point.  I don't care about collateral damage, whether or not WMD's actually exist, or whether the whole farking place will go full civil mode for over a decade requiring thousands of US troops to die and many tens of thousands with horrific injuries and PTSD that costs us trillions in debt that will take generations to cover.  What REALLY matters is whether we get some purple fingers out of this. Seriously, this is important fartbongo, don't screw this up! I WANT SOME PURPLE farkING FINGERS*

xcontra.files.wordpress.com

*Bonus if on on qt3.14 syrian waifus
 
2013-08-27 11:53:33 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: We didn't intervene in Rwanda.

We haven't intervened in Darfur.

Why in God's name would we go anywhere near Syria?  They're a Russian proxy, let Putin sort it out.


Bravo!

So bitter and apathetic.
 
2013-08-27 11:54:08 AM  
It's interesting to see the conversation (both on Fark and in the general public) quickly go from finding out which "side" is responsible for indiscriminate civilian casualties and then just move on to assigning blame on Assad without evidence. The Syrian rebels aren't composed of the nicest of people if you'll notice - their ranks are filled with foreign fighters of the ideological bent, non-Sunni minorities in Syria are already in their crosshairs in rebel controlled territory, and one faction (al-Nursa) is already reported to have sarin gas of their own.

This is after the US has already ignored previous use of chemical weapons there which is contested who is responsible with al-Nursa being a likely suspect. Now that there is a well publicized second incident, the US  and UK governments see keen to go kill Assad without doing the legwork of, you know, figuring out who did. I mean Kerry himself said it was common sense that Assad was responsible for this one action that he knows will lead to American involvement and this was before the UN team there even conducted an investigation.

The US, UK, and their allies already had made up their mind that in order to strengthen their regional hegemony Assad was going to have to bite it. It doesn't matter that the groups Assad is fighting are orders of magnitudes worse than he is because a US intervention was never planned on moral or humanitarian grounds - only geo-political power.
 
2013-08-27 11:56:11 AM  

ninotchka: RexTalionis: More reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, who helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with sarin nerve gas.

Oh no. This is the 10th time I have seen this libe. Is this the new Democrat talking point of the day? A better one would be that no matter how much we tried to help the Middle East the Middle East would just turn around and bite us no matter who was president. Either Genghis Khan the place or stay out of there.

/partisan politics suck donkey balls


Bringing the Kerry sack o chit back into the government theatre is way beyond stupid partisanship.
It is an insult to every "real" American.

Are they really that short on sociopathic talking heads?
 
2013-08-27 11:56:54 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


Careful.....
(from wikipedia) "The U.S. policy on the use of chemical weapons is to reserve the right to retaliate.  "
 
2013-08-27 11:58:52 AM  

Rixel: 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

Careful.....
(from wikipedia) "The U.S. policy on the use of chemical weapons is to reserve the right to retaliate.  "


And, first of all, the stockpiles are not "his". Bought, paid for, and installed on site by the CIA.
 
2013-08-27 11:59:22 AM  
thoughtless: [rant rife with grammatical errors]

wow I really need to preview comments, huh?
 
2013-08-27 11:59:33 AM  

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!


No the John Kerry who actually got off his ass an went to war for his country, something that a lot of his detractros couldn't seem to have bothered doing.  The John kerry who performed hroically enough under fire to earn himself several medals, and the John Kerry who  was so disillusioned about what he saw in Vietnam that he came home and spoke about it even though it would have been a lot easier for him personally and poltically to have just shut up and basked in his war hero status.   Also the John Kerry who actually DID something about the financial networks financing global terrorism by taking down the bank of COmmerce and Credit International- a money launderer for terrorists, while the GOP were still enrinching terrorists by swapping weapons for hostages.
 
2013-08-27 11:59:45 AM  

Rixel: 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

Careful.....
(from wikipedia) "The U.S. policy on the use of chemical weapons is to reserve the right to retaliate.  "


Hmmm... my preferred option would be this also. As you say, both sides of this war are repugnant. I just want the US to limit civilian casualties as much as possible.
 
2013-08-27 12:01:09 PM  
Annnd oil is up 3.50 a barrel. Thanks a-holes.
 
2013-08-27 12:02:00 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.


Because after 10 years of this crap it is only getting worse. The more we get involved from Carter until Obama we just get into a bigger mess. Until we clone Genghis Khan to straighten things out we are wasting money and our own men's lives.

My husband served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He survived both. (Came close to losing him in Iraq) Time to either fight a real war or just leave it alone.

Again sorry I am so bitter.
 
2013-08-27 12:02:10 PM  
www.tailgate365.com

justaguy516: You don't even know that Assad did it.

 
2013-08-27 12:03:10 PM  

RexTalionis: More reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, who helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with sarin nerve gas.


That's how we know Saddam had WMDs... we had the receipts!
 
2013-08-27 12:05:45 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..


wtf does this even mean?
 
2013-08-27 12:06:07 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: Rixel: 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

Careful.....
(from wikipedia) "The U.S. policy on the use of chemical weapons is to reserve the right to retaliate.  "

Hmmm... my preferred option would be this also. As you say, both sides of this war are repugnant. I just want the US to limit civilian casualties as much as possible.


That's a nice sentiment, but not always possible. This isn't a low-tech Rwandan genocide, where putting some people with guns in between the parties stops the violence. It's not a war of nation vs. nation where you can bomb Iraqi tanks until they leave Kuwait and negotiate a treaty. This is an ugly, a-symmetrical battlefield with a desperate dictator on one side and a hodgepodge of Syrian revolutionaries and Islamist fanatics from all over the region on the other. It's not simple or clean, and it's not our fight.
 
2013-08-27 12:06:17 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: Rixel: 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

Careful.....
(from wikipedia) "The U.S. policy on the use of chemical weapons is to reserve the right to retaliate.  "

Hmmm... my preferred option would be this also. As you say, both sides of this war are repugnant. I just want the US to limit civilian casualties as much as possible.


That's what you assholes said about Libya. No fly zone! Ceasefire! We have to save those people!


But then when the muzzle was off its all nessecary measures and ceasefires are being rejected outright and water treatment plants are being leveled and black people"mercenaries" are going into mass graves.
 
2013-08-27 12:06:25 PM  

mainstreet62: spawn73: SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.

You're ignorant.

He might be a troll at times, but he's right in this case. American inaction will only embolden other assholes to mimic Assad's BS.


He mentioned two specific countries.

So, no, ignorant.
 
2013-08-27 12:07:01 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!


not to nit pick but you mean a war that was started over a fictitious event (Gulf of Tonkin) that killed or maimed 10's of thousands of drafted US soldiers in an effort to stop the red scare ? over 60k us servicemen died in Vietnam over a lie.

A War Kerry actually fought in, He might be a complete asshole but he at least answered the call. He went to war and he didn't get 5 deferments or his daddy didn't get him in to the air national guard etc.
 
2013-08-27 12:07:13 PM  

someonelse: 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..

wtf does this even mean?


Someone prefers RedGold.
 
2013-08-27 12:08:15 PM  

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

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.


I am saying they will be more inclined to use chemical weapons on their own citizens without the fear of retribution from outside parties, like the US.
 
2013-08-27 12:08:51 PM  

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.


Some symbolic bombing seems in order.

Maybe Assad has some palaces or something like that, just try not to kill any of his family members.


Of course being damn sure that it was actually Assad that used chemical weapons is in order.
 
2013-08-27 12:09:52 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!


Srsly, you just copypasta'd this guy?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-27 12:09:58 PM  

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

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.


To me it more sounded like his cat walked over his keyboard, and it randomly spelled out a sentence.
 
2013-08-27 12:12:44 PM  

ontariolightning: Iran, despite being mean to its people (like half the countries in this world) does not deserve the treatment they have been getting. Quit painting them as bastards.
Say, didn't the US give Saddam chem weapons and tell them where to use them against Iran? Yeah screw off jack.


Indeed

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2013-08-27 12:12:56 PM  
So, these chemical weapons...would they by any chance have "For Iraq, Made in the USA" stamped on them?
 
2013-08-27 12:13:20 PM  

thoughtless: wow I really need to preview comments, huh?


nah...most people are on here just to reread their own posts anyway...no one will notice...:)
 
2013-08-27 12:14:04 PM  

ninotchka: Because after 10 years of this crap it is only getting worse. The more we get involved from Carter until Obama we just get into a bigger mess. Until we clone Genghis Khan to straighten things out we are wasting money and our own men's lives.

My husband served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He survived both. (Came close to losing him in Iraq) Time to either fight a real war or just leave it alone.

Again sorry I am so bitter.


You have a right to feel that way.  Your family made sacrifices I can't even imagine.  At the same time, 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.  If we are fine talking about Human Rights while completely ignoring others basic right to live, we may as well just give up.

And you're correct, we have screwed up so many times.  Getting involved in places we never should have while ignoring places we shouldn't have.  I am sure we will continue to fail in many situations.  However, we can't stop trying.
 
2013-08-27 12:15:51 PM  
For any british farkers out there, what is the mood like in Britain? I checked the guardian and the daily mail, but couldn't get any strong indicators.
 
2013-08-27 12:19:03 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: ninotchka: Because after 10 years of this crap it is only getting worse. The more we get involved from Carter until Obama we just get into a bigger mess. Until we clone Genghis Khan to straighten things out we are wasting money and our own men's lives.

My husband served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He survived both. (Came close to losing him in Iraq) Time to either fight a real war or just leave it alone.

Again sorry I am so bitter.

You have a right to feel that way.  Your family made sacrifices I can't even imagine.  At the same time, 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.  If we are fine talking about Human Rights while completely ignoring others basic right to live, we may as well just give up.

And you're correct, we have screwed up so many times.  Getting involved in places we never should have while ignoring places we shouldn't have.  I am sure we will continue to fail in many situations.  However, we can't stop trying.


This is one of those times we should not be involved, at any rate not without a full UN mandate. Don't be manipulated by your own government using your compassion to justify further destruction. It won't benefit us, and in the long run I don't think it benefits Syria either to open up a power vacuum we'd be responsible for filling.
 
2013-08-27 12:20:14 PM  

Magorn: 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!

No the John Kerry who actually got off his ass an went to war for his country, something that a lot of his detractros couldn't seem to have bothered doing.  The John kerry who performed hroically enough under fire to earn himself several medals, and the John Kerry who  was so disillusioned about what he saw in Vietnam that he came home and spoke about it even though it would have been a lot easier for him personally and poltically to have just shut up and basked in his war hero st ...


So, just because he followed the law, he is a wonderful human.
Bullchit.
OH, BTW, none of us were there for the lies. We were there to save American lives if possible. We fought for the GI next to us, not some political bull. Too bad you missed it.
I'll stick with my concept since I was there, here and have watched the prick behave badly for his entire life.
Lying to Congress(not that they would know the diff), manufacturing evidence, and aww, fark it.
 
2013-08-27 12:21:24 PM  

someonelse: 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!

Srsly, you just copypasta'd this guy?

[752x944 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/John_Hawkins_(columnist) .jpg image 752x944]


Why not, facts is facts.
Derp is derp.
Try to sort them out, plz.
 
2013-08-27 12:21:34 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.


Kerry became for the War when he found out that Assad uses Hunt's.
 
2013-08-27 12:21:40 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: ninotchka: Because after 10 years of this crap it is only getting worse. The more we get involved from Carter until Obama we just get into a bigger mess. Until we clone Genghis Khan to straighten things out we are wasting money and our own men's lives.

My husband served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He survived both. (Came close to losing him in Iraq) Time to either fight a real war or just leave it alone.

Again sorry I am so bitter.

You have a right to feel that way.  Your family made sacrifices I can't even imagine.  At the same time, 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.  If we are fine talking about Human Rights while completely ignoring others basic right to live, we may as well just give up.

And you're correct, we have screwed up so many times.  Getting involved in places we never should have while ignoring places we shouldn't have.  I am sure we will continue to fail in many situations.  However, we can't stop trying.


No. No more mulligans. No do overs. Stop killing people because you don't like the worlds shape.
 
2013-08-27 12:28:22 PM  

snocone: Why not, facts is facts.
Derp is derp.
Try to sort them out, plz.


I suggest you apply that to your Winter Soldier rant. Because that there thing you posted was full of derp.
 
2013-08-27 12:28:34 PM  
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -Senator Barack Obama, 2007

Tell me again how this is working out for you.
 
2013-08-27 12:28:52 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: You have a right to feel that way. Your family made sacrifices I can't even imagine. At the same time, 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. If we are fine talking about Human Rights while completely ignoring others basic right to live, we may as well just give up.

And you're correct, we have screwed up so many times. Getting involved in places we never should have while ignoring places we shouldn't have. I am sure we will continue to fail in many situations. However, we can't stop trying.


Yes but who exactly is your enemy and what are the conditions for winning? It would be extremely easy if our enemies were isolated.
 
2013-08-27 12:29:59 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: Bontesla:
I don't think it's possible to end the violence but there are things that can be done to limit it.
...Why not just implement a Berlin like wall?


And specifically how is a proverbial wall a bad idea?
 
2013-08-27 12:30:13 PM  
This will totally be different this time because Obama is president!
 
2013-08-27 12:30:32 PM  

Lost Thought 00: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Nadie_AZ: So suggesting we pay for the war and have a draft to fight it are now equal to going Starship Troopers?

Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary

Spanish-American War telephone tax


I learned something today. Thank you.

Still it went into the general fund and was not set aside to pay for the war. But it was a tax created to fund a war. So I'll allow it!!

I stand corrected
 
2013-08-27 12:30:46 PM  

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?

AssadCo?
He knew damn well what the consequences of the use of CW's would be - and UN inspectors had just landed in Damascus to investigate previous allegations, so unless you think Assad WANTED hell to be rained on him from the US and it's band of performing monkeys, it is highly unlikely that he is the culprit.

The opposition? They were also keenly aware of the consequences of such an attack - and that ANY such attack would immediately be blamed on ASSAD, as he is known to possess such weapons. A false-flag attack would therefor work VERY MUCH in the interests of Assad's enemies.

Impossible, you say? Where would they GET such weapons, you ask?

Where do they get the conventional arms that they use to fight Assad?

It seems undeniable that this was a staged, false-flag attack - and that the US (and others) are well aware of this fact, but are more than happy to use it a an excuse to jump into the fray.

So, who should be "punished"? The actual perpetrators?


/Kicks the dog
 
2013-08-27 12:31:08 PM  

Ned Stark: sign_of_Zeta: ninotchka: Because after 10 years of this crap it is only getting worse. The more we get involved from Carter until Obama we just get into a bigger mess. Until we clone Genghis Khan to straighten things out we are wasting money and our own men's lives.

My husband served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He survived both. (Came close to losing him in Iraq) Time to either fight a real war or just leave it alone.

Again sorry I am so bitter.

You have a right to feel that way.  Your family made sacrifices I can't even imagine.  At the same time, 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.  If we are fine talking about Human Rights while completely ignoring others basic right to live, we may as well just give up.

And you're correct, we have screwed up so many times.  Getting involved in places we never should have while ignoring places we shouldn't have.  I am sure we will continue to fail in many situations.  However, we can't stop trying.

No. No more mulligans. No do overs. Stop killing people because you don't like the worlds shape.


Yes, because that's the reason I believe we should go in.  Not because of the actual comments I have made.  Or because of what is actually going on.

We have tried to be an isolationist country before.  It has proven to be much as much of a disaster if not more so than taking no action at all.   I have no illusions that if we get involved we will be doing it for purely moral reasons.  I know better than that.  However, failing to do anything is much worse.

If America is smart about this, we will let other countries take the lead and be as little in the forefront as possible.  Unfortunately, in the real world, we have no good answer on this.
 
2013-08-27 12:31:42 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?


Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.
 
2013-08-27 12:32:56 PM  
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Constitutional scholar, time traveler, Barack Obama

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-27 12:35:04 PM  

Amos Quito: It seems undeniable that this was a staged, false-flag attack - and that the US (and others) are well aware of this fact, but are more than happy to use it a an excuse to jump into the fray.


You know, if false flag attacks happened every time someone said there was a false flag attack, then anytime anything bad happened it would be the secret plan of an New World Ord... oh yeah, sometimes I forget people actually believe that...

You know, there is a chance it wasn't Assad.  If the evidence says it wasn't, then of course we shouldn't act. However, I wouldn't really listen to people like Alex Jones and take their word for Gospel... people do have their own agendas you know, not just the government.
 
2013-08-27 12:35:56 PM  

someonelse: snocone: Why not, facts is facts.
Derp is derp.
Try to sort them out, plz.

I suggest you apply that to your Winter Soldier rant. Because that there thing you posted was full of derp.


Well, agree to disagree since it "don' mean a thing".

Lesson is the government knows you are too stupid and apathetic to do ANYTHING about it.
This token front person idiot, this war mongering campaign is a carbon copy of the last and the last and the last and the last,,
stop the farking dog from getting wagged
 
2013-08-27 12:37:59 PM  

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.


It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.
 
2013-08-27 12:38:08 PM  

USP .45: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Constitutional scholar, time traveler, Barack Obama

[299x299 from http://i.imgur.com/8sUiXsx.jpg image 299x299]


He certainly does not. BUT that does not keep his boss(s) from doing it. From 1%ville, there is no Constitution.
 
2013-08-27 12:40:15 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.


I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?
 
2013-08-27 12:41:17 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.


Nice thing about America, we'll bite everyone's ass.
Equal opportunity and all.

/just like the spoon, there is no friend
 
2013-08-27 12:41:47 PM  

thoughtless: thoughtless: [rant rife with grammatical errors]

wow I really need to preview comments, huh?


No brother, half of fark will do that for you for free.
 
2013-08-27 12:43:12 PM  

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?


We?
Who do you think is "we"?

/btw, everyone is the loser in this game, don't play
 
2013-08-27 12:44:50 PM  

Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?


Well what are you saying, exactly? We should intervene to fight Assad...but make sure he retains control? You lost me.

If we don't pick the winners, you get a big nasty mess of a proxy fight, and then years of chaos a la Lebanon. Should Damascus become the new Beirut? What outcome are you looking for?
 
2013-08-27 12:44:52 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: Amos Quito: It seems undeniable that this was a staged, false-flag attack - and that the US (and others) are well aware of this fact, but are more than happy to use it a an excuse to jump into the fray.

You know, if false flag attacks happened every time someone said there was a false flag attack, then anytime anything bad happened it would be the secret plan of an New World Ord... oh yeah, sometimes I forget people actually believe that...

You know, there is a chance it wasn't Assad.  If the evidence says it wasn't, then of course we shouldn't act. However, I wouldn't really listen to people like Alex Jones and take their word for Gospel... people do have their own agendas you know, not just the government.



For those who missed it:

Jerusalem Post

Report: Syrian rebel forces trained by West are moving towards Damascus

QUOTES:

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

END QUOTES


Coincidences:

 Note the dates?

CIA and Mossad trained operatives depart the Syrian/Jordan border on August 17th and 19th, headed toward DAMASCUS.

COINCIDENTALLY, a massive chemical weapon is detonated on August 21, on the outskirts of where? DAMASCUS.

AND CURIOUSLY the US and Israel seemed to know IMMEDIATELY that there HAD been a CW attack, AND blamed AssadCo.

ANOTHER COINCIDENCE: Days before the alleged attack, US inspectors just happened to arrive in DAMASCUS to investigate allegations of PREVIOUS chemical weapons use - allegedly by Assad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm NOT sayin' that this was necessarily a "false-flag" attacked designed to set up a US invasion of Syria!

All I'm sayin' is, that if it WAS a false flag attack, we have a pretty good idea of who MIGHT have had SOMETHING to do with pulling it off.


All the earmarks are there, sign_of_Zeta, what do you think?
 
2013-08-27 12:46:23 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lost Thought 00: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Nadie_AZ: So suggesting we pay for the war and have a draft to fight it are now equal to going Starship Troopers?

Just as likely. When have we ever had a tax just to pay for one individual thing? I guess you could say Social Security and Medicare but those go directly into the general fund.

Remember War Bonds were voluntary

Spanish-American War telephone tax

I learned something today. Thank you.

Still it went into the general fund and was not set aside to pay for the war. But it was a tax created to fund a war. So I'll allow it!!

I stand corrected


Wasn;t the federal income tax originally introduced to pay for WWI ?
 
2013-08-27 12:50:17 PM  
I hope someone has the sense not to bomb chemical and bio weapon dumps themselves this time aroun, releasing all that horrid shiat.

See Gulf War illness.
 
2013-08-27 12:51:23 PM  

snocone: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

We?
Who do you think is "we"?

/btw, everyone is the loser in this game, don't play


Everyone is a loser regardless of playing. Being a loser is a terrible reason not to play. There are far better ones.
 
2013-08-27 12:52:16 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: I hope someone has the sense not to bomb chemical and bio weapon dumps themselves this time aroun, releasing all that horrid shiat.

See Gulf War illness.


How else can you update inventory?
New sales don't just create themselves.
 
2013-08-27 12:54:09 PM  

Mr. Right: 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.


Hmm, who showed up in American politics and brought to us the idea of Realpolitik?

www.whale.to

It's been downhill ever since.
 
2013-08-27 12:56:42 PM  

ontariolightning: Assad is in Russia. Good luck killing him.


Secretary of State Kerry compared Bashar al-Assad to Genghis Khan.
Assad is in Russia.  Specifically, Moscow.

Dschingis Khan...
Moskau...

WOOOO!!!

i.imgur.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQAKRw6mToA
 
2013-08-27 12:56:54 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: Not historically. Say we do topple Assad, what then? There's no way we don't have a hand in forcing the creation of a new, Western-friendly government. To do that, we need influence on the ground, which means long term intervention, which means more casualties and continued guerilla fighting. It won't end well, or quickly.

Assad is a symptom of a larger problem. Why topple him? We aren't obligated to pick the winners.

Yes we are. That's the lesson we learned from Afghanistan decades ago, when we left the locals to pick up the pieces and they ended up oppressed by warlords and theocrats in a lawless haven for anti-Western terrorists. How'd that work out for us?

Not everyone has to like us. The issue wasn't that other countries didn't like us. It's that we intentionally did awful things because it provided us with the advantage.

It's not a question of "liking". We generated enemies through our own intervention that came back to bite us in the ass. Are you saying that if Assad fell, we wouldn't be around for years to come insuring that we didn't create another anti-Western Islamist state? Recent history would argue otherwise.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

Well what are you saying, exactly? We should intervene to fight Assad...but make sure he retains control? You lost me.

If we don't pick the winners, you get a big nasty mess of a proxy fight, and then years of chaos a la Lebanon. Should Damascus become the new Beirut? What outcome are you looking for?


I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.

It's not impossible. It's about creating the right strategy.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:44 PM  

Amos Quito: CIA and Mossad trained operatives depart the Syrian/Jordan border on August 17th and 19th, headed toward DAMASCUS.

COINCIDENTALLY, a massive chemical weapon is detonated on August 21, on the outskirts of where? DAMASCUS.

AND CURIOUSLY the US and Israel seemed to know IMMEDIATELY that there HAD been a CW attack, AND blamed AssadCo.


Hmmmm... it's almost like a completely logical explanation could be that Assad was trying to attack rebel forces at  DAMASCUS and that when he used gas in  DAMASCUS he miscalculated what the international response would be about  DAMASCUS.

Quick question for your series of events... why would the Assad government not allow UN inspectors to examine the area right away?
 
2013-08-27 12:59:18 PM  

Apik0r0s: Mr. Right: 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.

Hmm, who showed up in American politics and brought to us the idea of Realpolitik?

[479x577 from http://www.whale.to/b/kissinger9.jpg image 479x577]

It's been downhill ever since.


This is The Oil Age.
Combine that amount of fungible revenue with absent landlords to get the perfect amoral storm of Get It All Now.
 
2013-08-27 01:02:53 PM  

Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?


More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.
 
2013-08-27 01:04:04 PM  
Bontesla:

I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.

It's not impossible. It's about creating the right strategy.


That's a nice thought, but realistically impractical. There's not enough good will on either side to be pacified by international peacekeepers. And there's no way Assad allows international troops in the first place without fighting them. These high-minded ideals of just putting everybody in timeout til they work out differences are not based in reality. Either we don't go in, or we do, but it's crazy to think there's a nonviolent way to intervene outside of humanitarian aid for refugees.
 
2013-08-27 01:06:22 PM  

Bontesla: Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2013-08-27 01:07:25 PM  

Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.


Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.
 
2013-08-27 01:08:02 PM  

lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.


Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.
 
2013-08-27 01:10:41 PM  

lockers: Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.


You are right, there is almost a guarantee that our actions would end up killing some innocent people unintentionally.  The order of magnitude would be completely different if it's proven that Assad is using gas to kill rebels and civilians indiscriminately.  Guess what?  The world is not black and white.   We will have some blood on our hands no matter what we do or don't do.  The question is just how much.
 
2013-08-27 01:10:44 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla:

I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Why not entrust an outside with being the proverbial parent? Send them both to their proverbial rooms.

It's not impossible. It's about creating the right strategy.

That's a nice thought, but realistically impractical. There's not enough good will on either side to be pacified by international peacekeepers. And there's no way Assad allows international troops in the first place without fighting them. These high-minded ideals of just putting everybody in timeout til they work out differences are not based in reality. Either we don't go in, or we do, but it's crazy to think there's a nonviolent way to intervene outside of humanitarian aid for refugees.


Well, I'm not exactly suggesting international, either.

I'm also not entrusting either side to be reasonable. Look at the mess they've created?

I'm suggesting that we pause for a brief moment and spitball ideas. What do we have to lose?
 
2013-08-27 01:11:01 PM  

PainfulItching: Whodat: 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.

The US it part of the UN. So the US would be part of a UN response. If US personnel are part of a UN response, like Bosnia, what then?


By carry the load I mean that the UN should be in the front of this with only forces assigned to the UN engaging in the issue. The US should not be the first line or the major arms in what is for all intents and purposes a civil war.
 
2013-08-27 01:11:39 PM  

Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.


There is no good intervention strategy. It ends badly either way.
 
2013-08-27 01:12:51 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Sarin is just bug spray for humans.

Call me when they've got a thermosteller device.


FTFM
 
2013-08-27 01:14:08 PM  

Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.


Why is the presumption that it will end well if we do? Both sides are anti-western. The only thing we accomplish by getting involved is getting blood on our hands. If you have a crisis of conscience about it, your in the distinct minority. Americans don't want it. Syrians don't want it. The UN doesn't want it. For fark sake, if you can't even convince the UN to do a peacekeeping mission then just drop all pretense this is about chemical weapons. This is about war-profiteering for american companys.
 
2013-08-27 01:15:51 PM  

someonelse: wtf does this even mean?


i.imgur.com
/fortunate son
 
2013-08-27 01:16:05 PM  

Amos Quito: sign_of_Zeta: Amos Quito: It seems undeniable that this was a staged, false-flag attack - and that the US (and others) are well aware of this fact, but are more than happy to use it a an excuse to jump into the fray.

You know, if false flag attacks happened every time someone said there was a false flag attack, then anytime anything bad happened it would be the secret plan of an New World Ord... oh yeah, sometimes I forget people actually believe that...

You know, there is a chance it wasn't Assad.  If the evidence says it wasn't, then of course we shouldn't act. However, I wouldn't really listen to people like Alex Jones and take their word for Gospel... people do have their own agendas you know, not just the government.


For those who missed it:

Jerusalem Post

Report: Syrian rebel forces trained by West are moving towards Damascus

QUOTES:

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

END QUOTES


Coincidences:

 Note the dates?

CIA and Mossad trained operatives depart the Syrian/Jordan border on August 17th and 19th, headed toward DAMASCUS.

COINCIDENTALLY, a massive chemical weapon is detonated on August 21, on the outskirts of where? DAMASCUS.

AND CURIOUSLY the US and Israel seemed to know IMMEDIATELY that there HAD been a CW attack, AND blamed AssadCo.

ANOTHER COINCIDENCE: Days before the alleged ...


Al-Qaeda has and always will be one of the United States / Israel's most valued assets to coerce nations who don't agree with us.
 
2013-08-27 01:18:35 PM  

lockers: Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.


Please name a conflict in which my proposed solution has been carried out.
 
2013-08-27 01:23:18 PM  

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.

Les prélèvements réalisés à la suite de l'attaque par un hélicoptère gouvernemental à Saraqeb (province d'Idlib), dans le nord du pays, le 29 avril, sont encore plus probants. Le métabolite de sarin a été identifé dans les urines d'une victime, et du sarin régénéré (c'est-à-dire à l'état pur), dans le sang de deux autres victimes, dont l'une à une concentration élevée (9,5 nanogrammes/millilitre).

Les prélèvements de Saraqeb concernent cinq victimes, dont l'une est morte : ils ont été effectués par l'équipe soignante d'un hôpital de la région d'Idlib et transmis aux services français le 4 mai, avant d'arriver au laboratoire le le 9 mai. Selon les experts, les prélèvements sanguins sont impossibles à falsifier, contrairement aux urines, qui peuvent éventuellement être manipulées.

"The samples taken after the attack on April 29 by a government helicopter in Saraqeb (Idlib province), in the northern part of the country, are more probative.  Metabolized sarin was identified in the urine of one victim, and regenerated sarin (that is to say, in its pure state) was identified in the blood of two of the other victims, in once case at a high level of concentration (9.5 nanograms per milliliter)

The Saraqeb samples were from five victims, one of whom died.  They were taken by medical staff at a hospital in the Idlib region and handed over to the French government on May 4, before arriving at the lab on May 9.  According to the experts, blood samples are impossible to fake, unlike urine samples, which can at times be tampered with."
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/06/04/laurent-fabiu s- confirme-l-utilisation-de-gaz-sarin-en-syrie_3424140_3218.html
 
2013-08-27 01:24:53 PM  

Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

Please name a conflict in which my proposed solution has been carried out.


What solution? You just keep mouth farting about sending people to imaginary rooms.
 
2013-08-27 01:27:44 PM  
I'll be fine with Obama going to war in Syria if he only sides with the good guys.

(and gets the approval of congress)
 
2013-08-27 01:28:32 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.

There is no good intervention strategy. It ends badly either way.


It ends horribly if we intervene so let's see if there are degrees of less horrible.
 
2013-08-27 01:30:12 PM  

lockers: Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm saying that we shouldn't be the ones toppling anyone. Why should we pick the winners and losers?

More importantly, neither side is going to be our ally despite how much aid we give them. This is like picking between angry step dads when your a red head. Why even bother.

Because this doesn't end well without intervention I'm willing to listen to different types of intervention strategies.

Why is the presumption that it will end well if we do? Both sides are anti-western. The only thing we accomplish by getting involved is getting blood on our hands. If you have a crisis of conscience about it, your in the distinct minority. Americans don't want it. Syrians don't want it. The UN doesn't want it. For fark sake, if you can't even convince the UN to do a peacekeeping mission then just drop all pretense this is about chemical weapons. This is about war-profiteering for american companys.


I define something that doesn't end in genocide as a better option when compared to something that does end in genocide.
 
2013-08-27 01:33:25 PM  

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
 
2013-08-27 01:33:56 PM  

Ned Stark: Bontesla: lockers: Bontesla: I'm not saying that we should intervene to fight anyone. That's kind of our problem. We try to pick the winner in a fight that isn't ours.

I'm saying that we can intervene to prevent an inevitable genocide. We have some rather brilliant minds around the world. Let's start talking.

Please name a conflict that we got involved in where we didn't end up killing civilians. Even our super targeted and precise drones kill women and children. No, there is no way you can fix the killing of civilians by killing civilians. This is a failed military adventure waiting to happen.

Please name a conflict in which my proposed solution has been carried out.

What solution? You just keep mouth farting about sending people to imaginary rooms.


No. I keep talking about pausing for a moment to discuss alternatives.
 
2013-08-27 01:41:34 PM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: 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.

I don't want us involved either... but I think it isn't the rebels we are boo hoo-ing about. It is the innocent civilians, the mothers, fathers and children, that lack an advocate for their well-being.


Yea, that does suck; it's unfortunate -- but its not our role to overthrow every evil dictator.
 
2013-08-27 01:42:18 PM  

Bontesla: I define something that doesn't end in genocide as a better option when compared to something that does end in genocide.


This isn't genocide. This is a civil war. Kosovo was a genocide. Rowanda was a genocide. That is one faction using force on a different non-fighting faction. This is two armed forces fighting for control of a country. Both of those forces loath the west. So you can pick who your going to help kill the other, but neither will be thankful, nor will it stop civilians from being caught in the middle. Your silly idea of stopping a civil war borders on willfully ignorant. There is zero upside from getting involved.
 
2013-08-27 01:51:38 PM  

Bontesla: No. I keep talking about pausing for a moment to discuss alternatives.

newsbusters.org


upload.wikimedia.org
blogs.villagevoice.com
whitenoiseinsanity.com

Yep, that always works out eh?

Dude, you should have taken the RED pill...
 
2013-08-27 01:53:07 PM  

I_C_Weener: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan William Westmoreland's boys."

 
2013-08-27 01:57:30 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.


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.
 
2013-08-27 01:59:54 PM  

mrEdude: kent state. USA will shoot you in the head for peaceful protest, but thinks gassing you is too much.

Boo hoo.


The Americans didn't Think Of The Children when it came to spraying Agent Orange and other defoliants around in Vietnam.  I'd post photos of some of the thousands of the results, but I'd get banned.
 
2013-08-27 02:00:04 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: 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?



Same basic thing except divisions are among social classes.  A family of two can be a tribe.  In an earlier era, these mental delineations were probably a good thing for survival in the wild.  Now it's a solid component of ill will and human suffering.
 
2013-08-27 02:04:56 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Our military could be fully employed year round assisting with disaster relief, and not have to kill anyone, saving millions more lives than we ever would by bombing Assad. Why is the moral thing to do always killing?


this.

they could, for instance, be saving the great sequoias right now...
 
2013-08-27 02:05:41 PM  

SlothB77: If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.


Let them.  I don't care anymore.  China will smack down North Korea and there's nothing withing 1000 miles of Iran that has any value anyway.

Good riddance.
 
2013-08-27 02:11:23 PM  
More war is change that we can believe in !!!
 
2013-08-27 02:22:58 PM  

Magorn: 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?


I would look at Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and other mid East countries as evidence that a military coup is always a possibility, and that a dictator is about the only thing that can provide national cohesion.  The exception is Turkey, and their military is ready to take over from Erdogan at the drop of a hat.
 
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 293 of 293 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report