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 107
    More: Interesting, Ghengis Khan, Associated Press photographer, chemical warfares, Christmastime, Doctors Without Borders, Damascus, chemical weapons  
•       •       •

3697 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-27 10:15:16 AM  
7 votes:
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.
2013-08-27 10:04:13 AM  
7 votes:
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 09:42:15 AM  
5 votes:
More reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, who helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with sarin nerve gas.
2013-08-27 11:03:05 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:49:06 AM  
4 votes:

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


THIS
2013-08-27 10:36:00 AM  
4 votes:
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 10:35:14 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:22:55 AM  
4 votes:
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 10:21:41 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:21:34 AM  
4 votes:
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 11:09:31 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:50:53 AM  
3 votes:
Some diplomat. He tries to insult Syria and insults Mongolia instead.
Esn
2013-08-27 10:49:24 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:48:49 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:48:20 AM  
3 votes:
We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.
2013-08-27 10:45:19 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:38:11 AM  
3 votes:
How do we know it was Assad that used the chemical weapons?
2013-08-27 10:19:00 AM  
3 votes:

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


You mean Obamacare?
2013-08-27 10:18:28 AM  
3 votes:
Looks like you Americans are getting involved in this whether the populace wants it or not.
2013-08-27 11:46:16 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:51:53 AM  
2 votes:
Aarontology: We should enact conscription and a war tax and see how many people are still keen on military intervention.
2013-08-27 10:40:15 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:39:09 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:37:13 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:36:12 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:35:05 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:33:25 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:32:51 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:23:53 AM  
2 votes:
This will not end up in a war. Maybe a few drones strikes and some intel support, but that's it.
2013-08-27 10:21:48 AM  
2 votes:
John Kerry is lying?

shocking
2013-08-27 10:21:23 AM  
2 votes:
pol pot
pol pot
pol pot
2013-08-27 10:11:16 AM  
2 votes:
Kerry-Go back to Skull and Bones and jerk off in a coffin. Take Bush with you for old times.
2013-08-27 06:02:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:25:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:57:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:24:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:14:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:11:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:07:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:56 PM  
1 votes:
"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 12:30:13 PM  
1 votes:
This will totally be different this time because Obama is president!
2013-08-27 12:28:34 PM  
1 votes:
"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 12:19:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:58:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:53:09 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:41:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:36:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:35:51 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:35:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:24 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:23:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:22:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:16:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:14:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:07:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:04:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:02:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:02:16 AM  
1 votes:
The modern spelling is "Chingges Khan"
2013-08-27 11:02:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:59:35 AM  
1 votes:
vabenefitawareness.files.wordpress.com
2013-08-27 10:58:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:57:20 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:54:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:50:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:49:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:49:16 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-27 10:49:04 AM  
1 votes:
Does this mean Henry Kissinger will be returning his Nobel Peace Prize? I dinna think so.
2013-08-27 10:48:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:46:21 AM  
1 votes:
I guess this is where 'humanitarian' progressives get together with national greatness neocons to get their war boner on.
2013-08-27 10:43:36 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:43:30 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:42:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:33 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:42:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:41:28 AM  
1 votes:
The memory was Syria'd, Syria'd in him.
2013-08-27 10:41:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:40:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:38:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:35:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:32:02 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:31:53 AM  
1 votes:
If Syria is allowed to get away with this unpunished, get ready to see Iran and North Korea run amuck.
2013-08-27 10:31:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:29:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:29:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:29:29 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:27:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:26:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:18:10 AM  
1 votes:
World War III here we come...

...or is that here we go?
2013-08-27 10:11:49 AM  
1 votes:
Did he say it "Jenjis Khan".

I love when he does that.
2013-08-27 09:51:36 AM  
1 votes:
"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.
 
Displayed 107 of 107 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report