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.

(Gawker)   US intel agents intercepted phone calls FALSE FLAG from the Syrian Ministry of Defense FALSE FLAG asking their chemical weapons unit who in the fark told them FALSE FLAG to launch a chemical attack on a suburb full of civilians   (gawker.com) divider line 549
    More: Obvious, chemical warfares, Syrians, Syrian Ministry, syrian ministry of defense, special agents, chemical weapons unit, Secretary of State John Kerry, phone calls  
•       •       •

10869 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2013 at 8:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-28 11:37:41 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: netweavr: I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.

It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.

China laughs and counts yuans all day.


Russia no longer has that ability.  And everyone knows it.
 
2013-08-28 11:39:41 AM

Infernalist: BullBearMS: Infernalist: On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

In this case, there were no threats to our nation. Only threats to oil company profits if Gaddafi carried out the threats we know he made thanks to leaks of State Department cables by Manning.

You're right, there was no real threat to the US, but we're not alone in the world.  Our allies in Western Europe needed our help in this and we took a secondary role once the first waves of aerial attacks were done.  We supplied our military infrastructure and communications and military advice once the French and other nations had their aircraft in the air and working.

That's part of having allies, helping them when they need it.


He is just trying to make political hay out of this situation.
 
2013-08-28 11:40:20 AM

Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: netweavr: I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.

It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.

China laughs and counts yuans all day.

Russia no longer has that ability.  And everyone knows it.


What ability? To attack another nation? They kicked the crap out of Georgia a few years ago.
 
2013-08-28 11:40:29 AM

vygramul: dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: So, as I have said in since being a college kid during the Clinton years... why do we want any part of the Middle East? It's a cluster fudge of insanity. Why don't we just buy our oil and wish them good luck? Either they will work it out eventually or finally blow up the whole damn place, correct?

Because they can cut that oil off if they want to.   Just like they did in the 1970s.

In fact, entire wars have started because of oil embargoes.

Japan knew it was going to go to war with us long before we embargoed their oil.


Yes, because we had already embargoed things like rubber and petroleum distillates like avgas.   Things that Japan needed, but didn't have easy access to.  The oil embargo was just the last straw.

And we were right to embargo them.
 
2013-08-28 11:40:40 AM

Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: netweavr: I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.

It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.

China laughs and counts yuans all day.

Russia no longer has that ability.  And everyone knows it.


What ability? 'Cause they got no problem stalemating the UN. And wars aren't fought between major powers like they were in the early 20th century. Hence proxies. You only need a little bit of funding and arms to destabilize the regions in which your adversaries have interests.
 
2013-08-28 11:41:24 AM

Infernalist: Also saying "The US did bad things in Egypt, therefore Obama lied to get us into a oil war" just sounds silly. I wanted you to know that.


The US supports dictators that murder and torture their own people all over the globe, just as long as they obey our commands.

Here's what happened to protestors in the nation that acts as the home of our nation's fifth fleet in the Persian Gulf.

The police response was described as a "brutal" crackdown on peaceful and unarmed protesters, including doctors and bloggers.[34][35][36] The police carried out midnight house raids in Shia neighbourhoods, beatings at checkpoints and denial of medical care in a campaign of intimidation.[37][38][39] More than 2,929 people have been arrested,[19][40] and at least five died due to torture in police custody.[11]:287-8

Of course, we didn't have a problem with torturing and murdering peaceful protestors there.
 
2013-08-28 11:41:41 AM

netweavr: What ability? To attack another nation? They kicked the crap out of Georgia a few years ago.


So did General Sherman.
 
2013-08-28 11:42:06 AM

jpbreon: His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.

Nearly any nation, if not all, takes the instigation of armed conflict by a foreign power to be an act of aggression. We'd be fooling ourselves to think that if Russia started arming and training far right-wing insurrectionists that the US government wouldn't respond as if that was an act of war. There's also the historical precedent of using rebels or funding rebel groups prior to an actual invasion to soften up the target and create disruptions that benefit the invasion force.

I'm not saying that Obama will be foolish enough to send in the Marines to Damascus, though I've been wrong before about how brazen these interventionists can be. He is very much an interventionist, though.


Just to be completely state the obvious here so that everyone is aware: Every major nation has people that they use to train groups of men in other nations to help their own interests.  The US has men that have no official connection to the US that they use to train rebels to pick fights in places like Iran and Syria.  The Russians have men that they use to do the same and pick fights in places like Syria and the Ukraine and Georgia(the nation, not the state, goofs).

It's what nations do.  None of them can be traced back and proven to be proxies of any particular nation and the international diplomatic system requires that this remain intact.

In short, Proxy wars are acceptable on the international stage because they prevent REAL WARS from breaking out.
 
2013-08-28 11:43:12 AM
The issue on the release isn't who used the chemical weapons.  The issue is that doubt has been created and Obama has his out.

In the battle of Brutal Dictator vs. Islamic Extremists, let's just step back and grab some popcorn.
 
2013-08-28 11:43:57 AM

netweavr: Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: netweavr: I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.

It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.

China laughs and counts yuans all day.

Russia no longer has that ability.  And everyone knows it.

What ability? To attack another nation? They kicked the crap out of Georgia a few years ago.


They no longer have the ability to wage aggressive warfare on a modern nation.  Their military is antiquated and outdated and crewed by apathetic men just there because it's a paying job.
 
2013-08-28 11:44:04 AM
America is gearing up its war machine! GO LIBS!!
 
2013-08-28 11:45:24 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: Also saying "The US did bad things in Egypt, therefore Obama lied to get us into a oil war" just sounds silly. I wanted you to know that.

The US supports dictators that murder and torture their own people all over the globe, just as long as they obey our commands.

Here's what happened to protestors in the nation that acts as the home of our nation's fifth fleet in the Persian Gulf.

The police response was described as a "brutal" crackdown on peaceful and unarmed protesters, including doctors and bloggers.[34][35][36] The police carried out midnight house raids in Shia neighbourhoods, beatings at checkpoints and denial of medical care in a campaign of intimidation.[37][38][39] More than 2,929 people have been arrested,[19][40] and at least five died due to torture in police custody.[11]:287-8

Of course, we didn't have a problem with torturing and murdering peaceful protestors there.


Again, none of this is relevant.  I realize you like posting links, but no one cares.
 
2013-08-28 11:45:42 AM

Infernalist: jpbreon: His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.

Nearly any nation, if not all, takes the instigation of armed conflict by a foreign power to be an act of aggression. We'd be fooling ourselves to think that if Russia started arming and training far right-wing insurrectionists that the US government wouldn't respond as if that was an act of war. There's also the historical precedent of using rebels or funding rebel groups prior to an actual invasion to soften up the target and create disruptions that benefit the invasion force.

I'm not saying that Obama will be foolish enough to send in the Marines to Damascus, though I've been wrong before about how brazen these interventionists can be. He is very much an interventionist, though.

Just to be completely state the obvious here so that everyone is aware: Every major nation has people that they use to train groups of men in other nations to help their own interests.  The US has men that have no official connection to the US that they use to train rebels to pick fights in places like Iran and Syria.  The Russians have men that they use to do the same and pick fights in places like Syria and the Ukraine and Georgia(the nation, not the state, goofs).

It's what nations do.  None of them can be traced back and proven to be proxies of any particular nation and the international diplomatic system requires that this remain intact.

In short, Proxy wars are acceptable on the international stage because they prevent REAL WARS from breaking out.


Nah, they happen because it's feasible for governments to get away with that bullsh*t given current levels of technology in underdeveloped parts of the world (although that's changing). The stakes of REAL WAR are too dire to contemplate for any nuclear armed powers, and that keeps the major powers at bay.

/funny how many people are dying around the world in non-REAL WARS that we fund and promote
 
2013-08-28 11:45:49 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

In this case, there were no threats to our nation. Only threats to oil company profits if Gaddafi carried out the threats we know he made thanks to leaks of State Department cables by Manning.


See, this is why I don't understand why liberals aren't firmly in the non-interventionist camp. The so-called Right prattles on about the free market, but they have no intention of abiding by its diktats. They want to intervene and force changes in the market just like the side they claim to oppose.

The Left should rejoice. If an oil embargo occurred, the price would skyrocket. Just as the price of whale oil skyrocketed in the 19th century because of the scarcity of whales from over-hunting. This high price made an alternative cheaper by comparison, namely, kerosene. People began using kerosene and stopped using whale oil, and the whales survived without one single interventionist act by any government.

What could replace oil? We can't know, but many of the forms of energy liberals support would become profitable whereas they currently are not. The OPEC nations understand this, which is why they always find a way to increase production so the price never gets to the point that alternatives become viable. An oil embargo, while not without pain, could be the catalyst to the post-oil economy.
 
2013-08-28 11:46:33 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Infernalist: jpbreon: His example was also the training of some rebels, which isn't by any definition I'm aware of a violation of the section he intended to mention. Unless he's being absolutist about military action in a very broad sense.

Nearly any nation, if not all, takes the instigation of armed conflict by a foreign power to be an act of aggression. We'd be fooling ourselves to think that if Russia started arming and training far right-wing insurrectionists that the US government wouldn't respond as if that was an act of war. There's also the historical precedent of using rebels or funding rebel groups prior to an actual invasion to soften up the target and create disruptions that benefit the invasion force.

I'm not saying that Obama will be foolish enough to send in the Marines to Damascus, though I've been wrong before about how brazen these interventionists can be. He is very much an interventionist, though.

Just to be completely state the obvious here so that everyone is aware: Every major nation has people that they use to train groups of men in other nations to help their own interests.  The US has men that have no official connection to the US that they use to train rebels to pick fights in places like Iran and Syria.  The Russians have men that they use to do the same and pick fights in places like Syria and the Ukraine and Georgia(the nation, not the state, goofs).

It's what nations do.  None of them can be traced back and proven to be proxies of any particular nation and the international diplomatic system requires that this remain intact.

In short, Proxy wars are acceptable on the international stage because they prevent REAL WARS from breaking out.

Nah, they happen because it's feasible for governments to get away with that bullsh*t given current levels of technology in underdeveloped parts of the world (although that's changing). The stakes of REAL WAR are too dire to contemplate for any nuclear armed powers, and that keeps the major powers ...


It's better than the alternatives.
 
2013-08-28 11:47:38 AM
 
2013-08-28 11:47:49 AM

wingding: America is gearing up its war machine! GO LIBS!!


Can you imagine Cons doing a war protest? Too funny!
 
2013-08-28 11:48:06 AM

neversubmit: And a few post down from that one I corrected myself, still we are going ahead with or without Mr. Putin.


Now that I'm off the shiatter and sitting at a real computer instead of my phone...I found the article I was talking about, FWIW. Featured on FARK's main page on Monday. Select quotes:

"A Western military attack on Syria would only create more problems in the region, lead to more bloodshed and result in the same sort of "catastrophe" as previous such interventions in Iraq and Libya, Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Monday."

Sounds bad. Let's not do anything about Syria. Russia might object. Oh, but wait, I've discovered more writing on the parchment:

"Lavrov said Russia would not be going to war with anybody."

Well well well...

/That article doesn't have enough context to actually make foreign policy decisions, but I thought it was interesting.
 
2013-08-28 11:48:17 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.

Maybe do the propaganda thing.  Just fly over Syria all day long dropping satellite photos of where the rebels and Assad forces are, are moving to, and what their forces consist of.  Just constantly give intel  to both sides and the public.

You are one sick puppy.


Hey, if they want our involvement so bad they can't complain about our methods.  Basically, its the parent saying, "If you want to fight, fine.  Go outside and beat eachother senseless with these bats.   When you've had enough and want to join the international community again, we'll talk.  Until then...here is where each of your assets are right now.  Enjoy."
 
2013-08-28 11:48:21 AM

jpbreon: BullBearMS: Infernalist: On occasion, some threats to a nation's interest don't come from men with guns and bombs.

In this case, there were no threats to our nation. Only threats to oil company profits if Gaddafi carried out the threats we know he made thanks to leaks of State Department cables by Manning.

See, this is why I don't understand why liberals aren't firmly in the non-interventionist camp. The so-called Right prattles on about the free market, but they have no intention of abiding by its diktats. They want to intervene and force changes in the market just like the side they claim to oppose.

The Left should rejoice. If an oil embargo occurred, the price would skyrocket. Just as the price of whale oil skyrocketed in the 19th century because of the scarcity of whales from over-hunting. This high price made an alternative cheaper by comparison, namely, kerosene. People began using kerosene and stopped using whale oil, and the whales survived without one single interventionist act by any government.

What could replace oil? We can't know, but many of the forms of energy liberals support would become profitable whereas they currently are not. The OPEC nations understand this, which is why they always find a way to increase production so the price never gets to the point that alternatives become viable. An oil embargo, while not without pain, could be the catalyst to the post-oil economy.


I do wish we could get off the oil supply, but it's not going to happen until our government isn't in the pockets of the oil companies.  So, until then, small steps.  Only lunatic radicals would want to turn our society upside down just to stick a finger in the face of the oil companies.
 
2013-08-28 11:49:42 AM

Infernalist: I realize you like posting links, but no one cares.


Instead of whining, you could just admit that Obama lied us into a war for oil in Libya just like Bush lied us into a war for oil in Iraq.

Obama's "humanitarian reasons" were just as false as Bush's WMD's.
 
2013-08-28 11:50:17 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: So basically the government has broken down and whoever controls these chemical weapons could use them or even possibly lose control of them at any moment?

Tell me why again we haven't turned any chemical installations we are aware of into ash again?


Because Assad keeps his Chem plants near hospitals or schools.

But it wasn't Assad who ordered this attack.  This was the work of the rebels.  Our lovely little faction group who we've been arming and supplying for two years with the aide of the CIA's outsourced guys called Al-Qaeda.  To incite civil unrest in the country in hopes to destabilize it then create phony "red lines" to give us casus belli to attack them in the name of a democratic Syria.  Yeah, like a democratic Egypt.  Obama is continuing the plan Bush started and democratizing the Middle East.  However, it doesn't work that way.  And two, we're not really democratizing them.  The goal is to turn them all into puppet states and neutralize the region with Central Banks, Monsanto plants and images of Miley Cyrus.
 
2013-08-28 11:50:59 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: We supplied our military infrastructure and communications and military advice once the French and other nations had their aircraft in the air and working.

Yea. Sure.

The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion so far and played a far larger role in Libya than it has acknowledged, quietly implementing an emerging "covert intervention" strategy that the Obama administration hopes will let America fight small wars with a barely detectable footprint.


I like that idea.  A barely detectable footprint is an amazing approach to warfare.
 
2013-08-28 11:51:29 AM

Slaxl: For the record I believe chemical weapons have been used against rebels, and we should still stay out, because whichever side we help will be brutal towards their own people. Also politicians are useless and will botch the whole thing because of election cycles.

I was very much for intervention at the beginning, before I knew anything about the rebels, but I always was impulsive, I'm glad the governments are not, even if at the end of this 2 year period they're still making the wrong decision, you can hardly accuse them of rushing into it.


I think the big concern is that if we allow countries to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons with no kind of reprisal, that others will think they can get away with it too, leading to a big fear of the same shiat that went down during WW1.

I don't want to see troops on the ground or supporting one side over the other (although we and many countries already declared we want Assad to go), what I would like to see though is figure out where all the chemical stockpiles are, depots, and domestic manufacturers of said weaponized chemicals, and launch strikes on all those targets at the same time. This way neither side can use them, and one can't say that we're helping the terrorists elements that are in the conflict too.
 
2013-08-28 11:51:44 AM

dittybopper: vygramul: dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: So, as I have said in since being a college kid during the Clinton years... why do we want any part of the Middle East? It's a cluster fudge of insanity. Why don't we just buy our oil and wish them good luck? Either they will work it out eventually or finally blow up the whole damn place, correct?

Because they can cut that oil off if they want to.   Just like they did in the 1970s.

In fact, entire wars have started because of oil embargoes.

Japan knew it was going to go to war with us long before we embargoed their oil.

Yes, because we had already embargoed things like rubber and petroleum distillates like avgas.   Things that Japan needed, but didn't have easy access to.  The oil embargo was just the last straw.

And we were right to embargo them.


That's what makes even LESS sense. Syria isn't an oil exporter.
 
2013-08-28 11:53:42 AM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: I realize you like posting links, but no one cares.

Instead of whining, you could just admit that Obama lied us into a war for oil in Libya just like Bush lied us into a war for oil in Iraq.

Obama's "humanitarian reasons" were just as false as Bush's WMD's.


I never lied about anything.  It was front and center from the start that Libya's instability was messing with Western Europe's recovering economy.  I mean, from the first days.  There was never any attempt to pretend otherwise.

And yet, at the same time, those economic concerns dovetailed perfectly with the moral approach of supporting the rebels for humanitarian reasons.

In short, we 'could' have done what we've always done in the past and supported a ME dictator as he squashed a rebellion, but we didn't.  We stepped in for economic reasons AND because it was the right thing to do.

It's really 'that' simple, too.  The best thing for Europe's economy AND the moral thing to do....was the same damned thing.  Support the rebels.
 
2013-08-28 11:54:07 AM
Just to be completely state the obvious here so that everyone is aware: Every major nation has people that they use to train groups of men in other nations to help their own interests.  The US has men that have no official connection to the US that they use to train rebels to pick fights in places like Iran and Syria.  The Russians have men that they use to do the same and pick fights in places like Syria and the Ukraine and Georgia(the nation, not the state, goofs).

It's what nations do.  None of them can be traced back and proven to be proxies of any particular nation and the international diplomatic system requires that this remain intact.

In short, Proxy wars are acceptable on the international stage because they prevent REAL WARS from breaking out.


You're correct that many nations use proxy groups, but we know what would happen, and does happen, when a proxy group commits an act that can be traced back to the nation that trained and equipped them, and most importantly, provided the impetus. After all, the Taliban government's proxy war with the US had some real war consequences, did it not?

The Korean War was another proxy that resulted in a much larger war, as was Vietnam.

The only time your assertion even comes partially true is when the target government doesn't have the resources or ability to strike back for proxy invasions or insurrections. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc could not directly attack the US, but you can bet if they could do so, they would have. More unscrupulous nations turn to terrorism as the only effective counter-strike capability.
 
2013-08-28 11:55:02 AM

I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.

Maybe do the propaganda thing.  Just fly over Syria all day long dropping satellite photos of where the rebels and Assad forces are, are moving to, and what their forces consist of.  Just constantly give intel  to both sides and the public.

You are one sick puppy.

Hey, if they want our involvement so bad they can't complain about our methods.  Basically, its the parent saying, "If you want to fight, fine.  Go outside and beat eachother senseless with these bats.   When you've had enough and want to join the international community again, we'll talk.  Until then...here is where each of your assets are right now.  Enjoy."


That's a completely unfair characterization. These are people, seriously revolutionaries, fanatical fundamentalists, and desperately cornered autocrats. There are no "children" other than the literal ones caught in the crossfire. It's easy to take the paternalistic view of America being the civilized adult, but the truth is we (and Britain, France and Russia) have so thoroughly f*cked the Middle East by meddling in governments, re-drawing national boundaries irrespective of cultural or ethnic tensions, and funding and arming various groups that it would be the greatest miracle the world has ever known if there were peace in the region.
 
2013-08-28 11:55:07 AM
Hey...what's going on in here?
 
2013-08-28 11:56:28 AM

Daffydil: Hey...what's going on in here?


Apparently we were always gonna take you out.
 
2013-08-28 11:56:45 AM

Purdue_Pete: dittybopper: vygramul: dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: So, as I have said in since being a college kid during the Clinton years... why do we want any part of the Middle East? It's a cluster fudge of insanity. Why don't we just buy our oil and wish them good luck? Either they will work it out eventually or finally blow up the whole damn place, correct?

Because they can cut that oil off if they want to.   Just like they did in the 1970s.

In fact, entire wars have started because of oil embargoes.

Japan knew it was going to go to war with us long before we embargoed their oil.

Yes, because we had already embargoed things like rubber and petroleum distillates like avgas.   Things that Japan needed, but didn't have easy access to.  The oil embargo was just the last straw.

And we were right to embargo them.

That's what makes even LESS sense. Syria isn't an oil exporter.


I was talking about the Middle East in general.   See the part I bolded.

And they are all interconnected:  Syria has close ties with Iran, for example.
 
2013-08-28 11:56:53 AM

jpbreon: Just to be completely state the obvious here so that everyone is aware: Every major nation has people that they use to train groups of men in other nations to help their own interests.  The US has men that have no official connection to the US that they use to train rebels to pick fights in places like Iran and Syria.  The Russians have men that they use to do the same and pick fights in places like Syria and the Ukraine and Georgia(the nation, not the state, goofs).

It's what nations do.  None of them can be traced back and proven to be proxies of any particular nation and the international diplomatic system requires that this remain intact.

In short, Proxy wars are acceptable on the international stage because they prevent REAL WARS from breaking out.

You're correct that many nations use proxy groups, but we know what would happen, and does happen, when a proxy group commits an act that can be traced back to the nation that trained and equipped them, and most importantly, provided the impetus. After all, the Taliban government's proxy war with the US had some real war consequences, did it not?

The Korean War was another proxy that resulted in a much larger war, as was Vietnam.

The only time your assertion even comes partially true is when the target government doesn't have the resources or ability to strike back for proxy invasions or insurrections. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc could not directly attack the US, but you can bet if they could do so, they would have. More unscrupulous nations turn to terrorism as the only effective counter-strike capability.


Yes, yes, and then there's proxies for the proxies, on and on, until war is fought in the shadows by platoon-sized groups.

My only point is that these proxies are better for parties involved.  The alternative is to deal with massive armies clashing with the threat of WMD attacks hanging over every ones' heads.  Proxy wars are bad.  World Wars are worse.
 
2013-08-28 11:58:06 AM

Infernalist: Yes, yes, and then there's proxies for the proxies, on and on, until war is fought in the shadows by platoon-sized groups.


Of sexy female soldiers.

Oh, proxy lady....
(Hendrix-like solo to follow).
 
2013-08-28 11:59:00 AM

Banned on the Run: The issue on the release isn't who used the chemical weapons.  The issue is that doubt has been created and Obama has his out.

In the battle of Brutal Dictator vs. Islamic Extremists, let's just step back and grab some popcorn.


Assad isn't an idiot nor is he a genocidal dictator. He's moderately liberal with pro-western ideals while cognizant behaving with his own rational theory of power.He leads a shaky allianceof liberals, socialists, nationalists, leftwingers, rightwingers, Christians, allawis, shiates, druze, moderate sunni muslims, and various tribal and ethnic loyalties who can't agree on much of anything other than the possibility the whole country will revert to mass chaos if Assad falls from power and they risk being ethnically genocided by bearded madmen with machetes.Whether that actually will happen, well nobody knows, but the risk is enough to fall under the umbrella in parliament Assad has created with his absolute rule.

It's why his father was able to take power after pan-arab ideas with Nasser didn't quite pan out. It's why he was able to maintain power when the Muslim Brotherhood tried to oust him in the 80s, and why the transition from father to son was so smoothe despite virtually nobody in the country desiring monarchy or a hereditary assumption of power. They simply don't call it a monarchy since most of them ultimately have liberal ideals, but struggle with absolute power in the face of civil extremism.

Which is why ousting Assad can never be compared with ousting Gaddafi, which most people seem to think the two are identical. Assad has millions of people who will literally fight to the death to keep him power, as they believe he is ultimately the only thing preventing their entire families being tied to a pole in the center of town and shot in front of a crowd of screaming fanatics.

Nobody was willing to fight to the death for Gaddafi, even his most loyal supporters were happy to sit quietly as the rebel trucks came pouring into Tripoli when only days before they were out waving flags and chanting pro-gaddafi slogans.

Without Assad, you will probably see Syria being partioned into several smaller countries like Yugoslavia and the various ethnicities fleeing to their own particular safe zone. Which ultimately nobody wants, which is the only reason many moderate Sunnis still support the Alawi leader as well and have abandoned the rebels.
 
2013-08-28 11:59:07 AM

dittybopper: Infernalist: Yes, yes, and then there's proxies for the proxies, on and on, until war is fought in the shadows by platoon-sized groups.

Of sexy female soldiers.

Oh, proxy lady....
(Hendrix-like solo to follow).


You've been watching too much anime.
 
2013-08-28 12:00:17 PM

ChuDogg: Banned on the Run: The issue on the release isn't who used the chemical weapons.  The issue is that doubt has been created and Obama has his out.

In the battle of Brutal Dictator vs. Islamic Extremists, let's just step back and grab some popcorn.

Assad isn't an idiot nor is he a genocidal dictator. He's moderately liberal with pro-western ideals while cognizant behaving with his own rational theory of power.He leads a shaky allianceof liberals, socialists, nationalists, leftwingers, rightwingers, Christians, allawis, shiates, druze, moderate sunni muslims, and various tribal and ethnic loyalties who can't agree on much of anything other than the possibility the whole country will revert to mass chaos if Assad falls from power and they risk being ethnically genocided by bearded madmen with machetes.Whether that actually will happen, well nobody knows, but the risk is enough to fall under the umbrella in parliament Assad has created with his absolute rule.

It's why his father was able to take power after pan-arab ideas with Nasser didn't quite pan out. It's why he was able to maintain power when the Muslim Brotherhood tried to oust him in the 80s, and why the transition from father to son was so smoothe despite virtually nobody in the country desiring monarchy or a hereditary assumption of power. They simply don't call it a monarchy since most of them ultimately have liberal ideals, but struggle with absolute power in the face of civil extremism.

Which is why ousting Assad can never be compared with ousting Gaddafi, which most people seem to think the two are identical. Assad has millions of people who will literally fight to the death to keep him power, as they believe he is ultimately the only thing preventing their entire families being tied to a pole in the center of town and shot in front of a crowd of screaming fanatics.

Nobody was willing to fight to the death for Gaddafi, even his most loyal supporters were happy to sit quietly as the rebel trucks came po ...


Is Syria another example of the British creating a nation from scratch, stuffing different ethnic groups together that wouldn't exist otherwise, like Iraq?
 
2013-08-28 12:01:01 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.

Maybe do the propaganda thing.  Just fly over Syria all day long dropping satellite photos of where the rebels and Assad forces are, are moving to, and what their forces consist of.  Just constantly give intel  to both sides and the public.

You are one sick puppy.

Hey, if they want our involvement so bad they can't complain about our methods.  Basically, its the parent saying, "If you want to fight, fine.  Go outside and beat eachother senseless with these bats.   When you've had enough and want to join the international community again, we'll talk.  Until then...here is where each of your assets are right now.  Enjoy."

That's a completely unfair characterization. These are people, seriously revolutionaries, fanatical fundamentalists, and desperately cornered autocrats. There are no "children" other than the literal ones caught in the crossfire. It's easy to take the paternalistic view of America being the civilized adult, but the truth is we (and Britain, France and Russia) have so thoroughly f*cked the Middle East by meddling in governments, re-drawing national boundaries irrespective of cultural or ethnic tensions, and funding and arming various groups that it would be the greatest miracle the world has ever known if there were peace in the region.


Civilized?  Hell no.  I want this to resemble "Bum Fights".  We can even televise the carnage and make a PPV profit off of it.  Talk about a deterrent to other countries.
 
2013-08-28 12:01:47 PM

dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: dittybopper: vygramul: dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: So, as I have said in since being a college kid during the Clinton years... why do we want any part of the Middle East? It's a cluster fudge of insanity. Why don't we just buy our oil and wish them good luck? Either they will work it out eventually or finally blow up the whole damn place, correct?

Because they can cut that oil off if they want to.   Just like they did in the 1970s.

In fact, entire wars have started because of oil embargoes.

Japan knew it was going to go to war with us long before we embargoed their oil.

Yes, because we had already embargoed things like rubber and petroleum distillates like avgas.   Things that Japan needed, but didn't have easy access to.  The oil embargo was just the last straw.

And we were right to embargo them.

That's what makes even LESS sense. Syria isn't an oil exporter.

I was talking about the Middle East in general.   See the part I bolded.

And they are all interconnected:  Syria has close ties with Iran, for example.


Fair enough, so the end to every "what are we doing over there" debate is just say "oil" and move on. Sadly, I am going to have to agree with you... becasue this makes no sense at all to me and I am a very open-minded person.

www.biyokulule.com
 
2013-08-28 12:01:59 PM

Infernalist: Only lunatic radicals would want to turn our society upside down just to stick a finger in the face of the oil companies.


Holy shiatsnacks.

Is an Obama shill actually defending the oil companies now that it's been shown that he forced a regime change in Libya to protect their precious, precious profits??
 
2013-08-28 12:02:31 PM
Uncle Sams dick is already in 2 bear traps, are we really going for a third?
 
2013-08-28 12:05:08 PM
FTA:

According to a report in Foreign Policy, U.S. intelligence agents intercepted "panicked" phone calls last Wednesday between officials at the Syrian Ministry of Defense and the leaders of a Syrian chemical weapons unit.

[...]

"In the intercepted phone calls, one official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense reportedly demands answers from the chemical weapons unit's leader for the alleged chemical weapons attack that killed over 1,300 people last week. While the phone calls, if true, would prove that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks, it would raise other questions, like was the attack intentionally ordered by Assad's government or was it work of a rogue Syrian officer?"


Or was it C) neither?

Hey st00pid reporter, if Assad had ORDERED the attack, why would his defense ministry be making "PANICKED PHONE CALLS" to the chemical weapons unit's leader asking "WTF IS GOING ON"???

And of course we don't have the details of the allegedly intercepted calls, but I think it's a safe bet that the CW unit leader's answer was something like "WTF are you talking about, sir? It wasn't us!"

From what little has been revealed so far, these calls would seem to DISPROVE, rather than give credence to the accusation that AssadCo was behind the
attack.

Couple the above with the fact that the projectile alleged to have carried the deadly cocktail is NOT military grade my any stretch, but a crude, poorly fabricated amateurish "piece of work" that looks like it was hammered out by some clown with a torch, a welder and a grinder...

static.guim.co.uk

and all evidence that supposedly point to AssadCo as being the culprit quickly falls apart. If anything, it points to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.

And yet we're about to dive into this mire based on this bullshiat?

I am depressed.
 
2013-08-28 12:05:23 PM

Purdue_Pete: dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: dittybopper: vygramul: dittybopper: Purdue_Pete: So, as I have said in since being a college kid during the Clinton years... why do we want any part of the Middle East? It's a cluster fudge of insanity. Why don't we just buy our oil and wish them good luck? Either they will work it out eventually or finally blow up the whole damn place, correct?

Because they can cut that oil off if they want to.   Just like they did in the 1970s.

In fact, entire wars have started because of oil embargoes.

Japan knew it was going to go to war with us long before we embargoed their oil.

Yes, because we had already embargoed things like rubber and petroleum distillates like avgas.   Things that Japan needed, but didn't have easy access to.  The oil embargo was just the last straw.

And we were right to embargo them.

That's what makes even LESS sense. Syria isn't an oil exporter.

I was talking about the Middle East in general.   See the part I bolded.

And they are all interconnected:  Syria has close ties with Iran, for example.

Fair enough, so the end to every "what are we doing over there" debate is just say "oil" and move on. Sadly, I am going to have to agree with you... becasue this makes no sense at all to me and I am a very open-minded person.

[489x360 from http://www.biyokulule.com/sawiro/sawirada_waaweyn/Oil%20war3.jpg image 489x360]


Israel approves oil drilling in Golan Heights

"Based on its preliminary analysis and interpretation of existing geological data, that the newly issued license area may contain significant quantities of conventional oil and gas in relatively tight formations, the development of which would entail significantly different technical approaches and project timelines than the other projects," Genie Energy said in a statement.
 
2013-08-28 12:05:29 PM

I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I_C_Weener: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm really sick of these retarded military misadventures where we confirm to the world that we are, in fact, a bunch of thick-browed gunslinging idiots that can be made the world's tool with amazingly little provocation. Not to mention the opportunity cost in human suffering we could be alleviating instead of dropping bombs.

Maybe do the propaganda thing.  Just fly over Syria all day long dropping satellite photos of where the rebels and Assad forces are, are moving to, and what their forces consist of.  Just constantly give intel  to both sides and the public.

You are one sick puppy.

Hey, if they want our involvement so bad they can't complain about our methods.  Basically, its the parent saying, "If you want to fight, fine.  Go outside and beat eachother senseless with these bats.   When you've had enough and want to join the international community again, we'll talk.  Until then...here is where each of your assets are right now.  Enjoy."

That's a completely unfair characterization. These are people, seriously revolutionaries, fanatical fundamentalists, and desperately cornered autocrats. There are no "children" other than the literal ones caught in the crossfire. It's easy to take the paternalistic view of America being the civilized adult, but the truth is we (and Britain, France and Russia) have so thoroughly f*cked the Middle East by meddling in governments, re-drawing national boundaries irrespective of cultural or ethnic tensions, and funding and arming various groups that it would be the greatest miracle the world has ever known if there were peace in the region.

Civilized?  Hell no.  I want this to resemble "Bum Fights".  We can even televise the carnage and make a PPV profit off of it.  Talk about a deterrent to other countries.


I get it, you're goofing around. It does pain me though how callous and bloodthirsty America has become with regards to the death and suffering we cause around the world (even cheering for it!). Maybe Fark's not the right place for me to be in my current mindset. I'll see you guys around.
 
2013-08-28 12:07:10 PM

Infernalist: UrukHaiGuyz: netweavr: I_C_Weener: Infernalist: netweavr: I'm starting to wonder if we're not in another Cold War with Russia. These Proxy Wars and blatant propaganda combined with seemingly unreasonably paranoid security measures could easily be explained by one.

If we are, the Russians are losing badly.  Libya was one of their proxy nations, along with Syria.

Classic rope a dope strategy.  Block any UN action.  Let us exhaust ourselves in many smaller engagements around the world.  Spread ourselves so thin that the North Koreans can invade via Hollywood technology.  But I'm not falling for it.

It would be Al Qaida's tactic but backed by Russian might. Honestly if we invade Syria and Russia responds by invading a Western interest (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt) we'd be unable to respond.

China laughs and counts yuans all day.

Russia no longer has that ability.  And everyone knows it.


Yeah - Russia can't even invade the Baltics right now.
 
2013-08-28 12:07:17 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Apparently we were always gonna take you out.


always take me out where?  I'll need to shower first...
 
2013-08-28 12:07:29 PM

BullBearMS: Infernalist: Only lunatic radicals would want to turn our society upside down just to stick a finger in the face of the oil companies.

Holy shiatsnacks.

Is an Obama shill actually defending the oil companies now that it's been shown that he forced a regime change in Libya to protect their precious, precious profits??


Not profits.  The stability of the European economy and, in effect, our own.  There is a difference.
 
2013-08-28 12:08:28 PM
Genie Energy - which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch

"This action is mostly political - it's an attempt to deepen Israeli commitment to the occupied Golan Heights,"Israeli political analyst Yaron Ezrahi told FT. "The timing is directly related to the fact that the Syrian government is dealing with violence and chaos and is not free to deal with this problem."


But you know stuff just happens.
 
2013-08-28 12:08:34 PM

Infernalist: PunGent: Launch Code: So we're going to war AGAIN! Where are the anti war protestors? Where's the code pink nuts? I guess biden and almost all the other demahippocrates are ok with this fight. Most democrats won't speak out against barry or his policies because they fear the almighty jackboot of liberal scorn, political suicide, death threats cold shoulders at dem gatherings etc. Does anyone on the left have the intestinal fortitude to question anything at all that this guy does?

barry is a known narcissist.

As opposed to every other president in the television era?  or ever?

The self-effacing rarely seek high office.

Read his whole post.


I did.
 
2013-08-28 12:09:33 PM

Infernalist: Is Syria another example of the British creating a nation from scratch, stuffing different ethnic groups together that wouldn't exist otherwise, like Iraq?


French in this case, but yeah. Western powers weren't keen on creating a mono-ethnic nation state in the middle east. To be fair, it didn't exactly work out when they tried it themself.  Arabs tend to revert to the "no true scotsman" fallacy alot when anyone of their own is doing something slightly different than they envision.

You could look at current policy is very similar to the post-Ottoman policy. Now that these Arab States are getting stronger the West is supporting divisions among them, even if that means Muslim Brotherhood of Al-Qaeda, simply to erode their sovereignty and ability to project influence internationally.
 
2013-08-28 12:09:49 PM

PunGent: Infernalist: PunGent: Launch Code: So we're going to war AGAIN! Where are the anti war protestors? Where's the code pink nuts? I guess biden and almost all the other demahippocrates are ok with this fight. Most democrats won't speak out against barry or his policies because they fear the almighty jackboot of liberal scorn, political suicide, death threats cold shoulders at dem gatherings etc. Does anyone on the left have the intestinal fortitude to question anything at all that this guy does?

barry is a known narcissist.

As opposed to every other president in the television era?  or ever?

The self-effacing rarely seek high office.

Read his whole post.

I did.


And you do know he was goofing, don't you?
 
Displayed 50 of 549 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report