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.

(Independent)   Whose side is Obama on anyway? If you said "al-Qa'ida" you'd be right   (independent.co.uk) divider line 162
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1433 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Aug 2013 at 9:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-28 08:11:03 AM
An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.
 
2013-08-28 08:15:23 AM

xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.


Does anyone?
 
2013-08-28 08:16:16 AM
When it comes to the middle east, our allies and assets are all lies and ass hats

/The enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, and thus is my enemy's enemy -friendo
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 08:17:38 AM
I had to look it up but The Independent is owned by  Russian Oligarch Alexander Lebedev.  I wonder why they might take that position?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-28 08:20:48 AM
So far my favorite derp on all of this is "Obama should be instantly impeached if he sends our boys off to war in Syria without congressional approval but if we DID go to war in Syria we'd find all of Saddam's WMDs which would instantly vindicate George W. Bush."
 
2013-08-28 08:22:53 AM
We tried to warn you.  But nooooo, you had to elect a sekrit muslin.  This is the chickens coming home to roost.
 
2013-08-28 08:27:22 AM

xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.


Nuances are for pansy liberals.
 
2013-08-28 08:29:34 AM

I_C_Weener: xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.

Does anyone?


This.  I haven't a clue who to "root for" here.  All I know is that one of the most disgusting things in the world is children suffering from wars they don't even understand.  What's the solution?  Hell if I know.
 
2013-08-28 08:39:50 AM

I_C_Weener: xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.

Does anyone?


It's a multi-party civil war.  On one side, you have an assholes who like using chemical weapons.  On the other, you have general run-of-the-mill terrorist assholes.  In the middle, there's probably a large silent majority who want simply want to not be surrounded by assholes.  But the reason they're silent is they don't have as many guns, and well, a lot of them are already dead.

The problem is that there's no way to support or help the non-asshole faction without giving aid to at least one of the others.  Best option as I can see it is to somehow figure out where Bashar Assad is going to be some time in the future, and have the US Navy deliver a very loud and very short message about why it's a bad thing to use NBC's.  Not because it'll do anything at all to help the Syrian people, but just pour encourager les autres.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 08:44:19 AM

Karac: Does anyone?

It's a multi-party civil war.  On one side, you have an assholes who like using chemical weapons.  On the other, you have general run-of-the-mill terrorist assholes.  In the middle, there's probably a large silent majority who want simply want to not be surrounded by assholes.  But the reason they're silent is they don't have as many guns, and well, a lot of them are already dead.

The problem is that there's no way to support or help the non-asshole faction without giving aid to at least one of the others.  Best option as I can see it is to somehow figure out where Bashar Assad is going to be some time in the future, and have the US Navy deliver a very loud and very short message about why it's a bad thing to use NBC's.  Not because it'll do anything at all to help the Syrian people, but just pour encourager les autres.


So, no worries about collateral damage then?

Seriously, even though we don't support either side in the war, we do have an interest in discouraging chemical weapons use.  Especially if we can destroy some of the chemical weapons stocks.

I suspect any action will be limited to cruise missile strikes.  I can't imagine sending in ground forces and we won't want to risk an aircraft getting shot down and a pilot being captured.
 
2013-08-28 08:52:52 AM

Karac: I_C_Weener: xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.

Does anyone?

It's a multi-party civil war.  On one side, you have an assholes who like using chemical weapons.  On the other, you have general run-of-the-mill terrorist assholes.  In the middle, there's probably a large silent majority who want simply want to not be surrounded by assholes.


You know who ELSE hated being surrounded by Assholes?

/keep firing, Assholes!

No, but seriously, that's my point.  NOBODY has the full breadth of understanding of what the hell is going on here.  So to have some random guy speak with the voice of authority on the subject matter seems kind of ridiculous to me.  TFA author's POV is only one facet here, and for anyone to think that it's THE only issue is stupid...which is how the author made it sound.

Well, to me, anyway.  My 2 cents. YMMV. Void where prohibited.
 
2013-08-28 08:53:39 AM

vpb: Karac: Does anyone?

It's a multi-party civil war.  On one side, you have an assholes who like using chemical weapons.  On the other, you have general run-of-the-mill terrorist assholes.  In the middle, there's probably a large silent majority who want simply want to not be surrounded by assholes.  But the reason they're silent is they don't have as many guns, and well, a lot of them are already dead.

The problem is that there's no way to support or help the non-asshole faction without giving aid to at least one of the others.  Best option as I can see it is to somehow figure out where Bashar Assad is going to be some time in the future, and have the US Navy deliver a very loud and very short message about why it's a bad thing to use NBC's.  Not because it'll do anything at all to help the Syrian people, but just pour encourager les autres.

So, no worries about collateral damage then?

Seriously, even though we don't support either side in the war, we do have an interest in discouraging chemical weapons use.  Especially if we can destroy some of the chemical weapons stocks.

I suspect any action will be limited to cruise missile strikes.  I can't imagine sending in ground forces and we won't want to risk an aircraft getting shot down and a pilot being captured.


Not no worries - but the best bad option out of a set of only bad options.  Better the collateral damage from a single bomb than to admit that using chemical weapons has no repercussions, which will only encourage their use by someone else in the future.  A needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few thing.  Think of it like this: if you could send a large bomb back to a Munich bar in 1923, would you do it to kill Hitler even though a few innocent barmaids would probably also get killed?

And yeah, if we find cache of chemical weapons, definitely dial 1-800-TOMAHAWK; sending in ground troops would just end up as the next Iraq or Vietnam.
 
2013-08-28 08:55:18 AM

vpb: I suspect any action will be limited to cruise missile strikes


The problem here is that the Assad regime would have no bones about putting these chemical stockpiles right next door to a school or a mosque.  True sign of a Major Asshole.  But, yes, I believe you're right.  We'll just lob a few missiles into Syria, pat ourselves on the back for a job well done, and head on home.  Maybe send another strongly-worded letter saying if they don't behave, we'll do it again.
 
2013-08-28 09:00:19 AM

xanadian: vpb: I suspect any action will be limited to cruise missile strikes

The problem here is that the Assad regime would have no bones about putting these chemical stockpiles right next door to a school or a mosque.  True sign of a Major Asshole.  But, yes, I believe you're right.  We'll just lob a few missiles into Syria, pat ourselves on the back for a job well done, and head on home.  Maybe send another strongly-worded letter saying if they don't behave, we'll do it again.


Until a Assad fires an Exocet missile at one of our destroyers.  Then it's World War III time.
 
2013-08-28 09:03:46 AM
he loves al qaeda so much that he killed their leader and keeps killing their number twos. now that's love!
 
2013-08-28 09:04:49 AM

FlashHarry: he loves al qaeda so much that he killed their leader and keeps killing their number twos. now that's love!


Who is number 1 now, btw?  Is number 2 now number 1?
 
2013-08-28 09:07:37 AM

I_C_Weener: We tried to warn you.  But nooooo, you had to elect a sekrit muslin.  This is the chickens coming home to roost.


Should have been your Weeners in the thread for bites
 
2013-08-28 09:10:28 AM
This isn't our concern

No matter which side we go in for we are farked

It's completely lose/lose.
 
2013-08-28 09:22:46 AM

cman: This isn't our concern

No matter which side we go in for we are farked

It's completely lose/lose.


I think you said the same thing about Libya, didn't you?
 
2013-08-28 09:23:18 AM
Here's what I know about this conflict: Whatever Taxbongo does, I will be against it.  It's the only way to save this country from his disastrous policy decisions, whatever side of the issue he may take.
 
2013-08-28 09:24:59 AM

cameroncrazy1984: cman: This isn't our concern

No matter which side we go in for we are farked

It's completely lose/lose.

I think you said the same thing about Libya, didn't you?


Not the lose/lose part
 
2013-08-28 09:25:10 AM
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick Assad.

And I'm all out of bubblegum.
 
2013-08-28 09:25:39 AM

cman: This isn't our concern

No matter which side we go in for we are farked

It's completely lose/lose.


but what about all the people being treated like shiat.  what about all the rape, murder, arson and rape that goes on?  who will save those people!?
 
2013-08-28 09:26:19 AM
Of all the possible triggers of WW3, who would have predicted the US fighting on behalf/ alongside al qaeda?

/i say WW3 because Iran has threatened to target Israel if the US goes into Syria.
 
2013-08-28 09:28:06 AM

ManateeGag: cman: This isn't our concern

No matter which side we go in for we are farked

It's completely lose/lose.

but what about all the people being treated like shiat.  what about all the rape, murder, arson and rape that goes on?  who will save those people!?


Those people can be saved just about as much as the people who were on the Titanic.
 
2013-08-28 09:29:12 AM

EvilEgg: FlashHarry: he loves al qaeda so much that he killed their leader and keeps killing their number twos. now that's love!

Who is number 1 now, btw?  Is number 2 now number 1?


076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com
 
2013-08-28 09:30:53 AM

cman: This isn't our concern

No matter which side we go in for we are farked

It's completely lose/lose.


We have to show the world that evil deeds, like those done by Assad, will not be tolerated.  Even if they were done to Al Qaeda supporters.  But then if the Al Qaeda rebel elements do the same thing, then we take them out too.  You can't just gas women and children and go unpunished.
 
2013-08-28 09:36:33 AM

SlothB77: We have to show the world that evil deeds, like those done by Assad, will not be tolerated.  Even if they were done to Al Qaeda supporters.  But then if the Al Qaeda rebel elements do the same thing, then we take them out too.  You can't just gas women and children and go unpunished.


Sounds great. Let NATO do it, led by France and Turkey. They've got far more vested interest there than the US does. I want no part of this one.
 
2013-08-28 09:40:23 AM

SlothB77: We have to show the world that evil deeds, like those done by Assad, will not be tolerated. Even if they were done to Al Qaeda supporters.



Anyone that would be willing to use that shiat on his own people is willing to use it on damn near anyone and needs to be eliminated.

That being said, it needs to be done in a way where the world community is on board. The fact that the Russians and China are joining hands against any action is very troubling.
 
2013-08-28 09:42:34 AM

I_C_Weener: We tried to warn you.  But nooooo, you had to elect a sekrit muslin.  This is the chickens coming home to roost.


Well, to be fair, they needed new chickens anyway.  Last bunch is all f*cked out.
 
2013-08-28 09:46:39 AM
Maybe the intelligence is really good and strong that Assad did it, but is there not a possibility that Al Qaeda or some similar opposition group deployed chemical weapons against its own people on purpose?

If you're losing a war, you do whatever it takes to get some military intervention.

Personally I think that whole country is farked. This is a proxy war with China and Russia supplying the means to Iran and Hezbollah while Al Qaeda gets in there and then you probably also have a president who thinks the solution to the problem is genocide.

I agree, let other countries sort it out. We'll provide air support to our allies (in exchange for money) and some Patriot missile batteries to whoever is on the ground, and maybe use the air support to destroy any and all chemical weapons locations we can find - and call it good.
 
2013-08-28 09:47:26 AM
One way to handle this would be to create a "no fly zone".  In that "no fly zone" if there is artillery capable of firing chemical weapons, it gets destroyed. Same with missile launchers.  Same with any other delivery method.  Period.  Rebels or Assad.

Let them fight it out the old fashioned way.  US Civil War era style.  Line up on a field and shoot cannon at each other.
 
2013-08-28 09:50:42 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: SlothB77: We have to show the world that evil deeds, like those done by Assad, will not be tolerated. Even if they were done to Al Qaeda supporters.


Anyone that would be willing to use that shiat on his own people is willing to use it on damn near anyone and needs to be eliminated.

That being said, it needs to be done in a way where the world community is on board. The fact that the Russians and China are joining hands against any action is very troubling.


They are both interested in regional hegemony and the natural resources (oil and gas) that result from that control. This is a fairly small scale proxy war with some aligned parties like Iran, Russia, and China, against say the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey (as well as most of Europe).

In other words it's a total f*cking disaster.
 
2013-08-28 09:53:02 AM

I_C_Weener: One way to handle this would be to create a "no fly zone".  In that "no fly zone" if there is artillery capable of firing chemical weapons, it gets destroyed. Same with missile launchers.  Same with any other delivery method.  Period.  Rebels or Assad.

Let them fight it out the old fashioned way.  US Civil War era style.  Line up on a field and shoot cannon at each other.


From what I heard, this is not something that can be accomplished simply with bombing/missiles.
 
2013-08-28 09:56:57 AM
Meh, TFA is technically right that when we attack Syria we'll be on al qaeda's side. But of course, it won't just be Obama but everyone who supports such an attack, including most congressional republicans.
 
2013-08-28 09:59:14 AM

xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.


Lamar Odom?
 
2013-08-28 10:00:22 AM

mrshowrules: I_C_Weener: One way to handle this would be to create a "no fly zone".  In that "no fly zone" if there is artillery capable of firing chemical weapons, it gets destroyed. Same with missile launchers.  Same with any other delivery method.  Period.  Rebels or Assad.

Let them fight it out the old fashioned way.  US Civil War era style.  Line up on a field and shoot cannon at each other.

From what I heard, this is not something that can be accomplished simply with bombing/missiles.


Now now.  There is very little that cannot be accomplished with bombing and missiles.  What are you, some kind of American't?
 
2013-08-28 10:01:19 AM
"Flip-flopper."

www.jamesaltucher.com
 
2013-08-28 10:02:17 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: SlothB77: We have to show the world that evil deeds, like those done by Assad, will not be tolerated. Even if they were done to Al Qaeda supporters.


Anyone that would be willing to use that shiat on his own people is willing to use it on damn near anyone and needs to be eliminated.

That being said, it needs to be done in a way where the world community is on board. The fact that the Russians and China are joining hands against any action is very troubling.


That's nothing new though, and I doubt they have an appetite to make this a true proxy war.
 
2013-08-28 10:02:24 AM

I_C_Weener: mrshowrules: I_C_Weener: One way to handle this would be to create a "no fly zone".  In that "no fly zone" if there is artillery capable of firing chemical weapons, it gets destroyed. Same with missile launchers.  Same with any other delivery method.  Period.  Rebels or Assad.

Let them fight it out the old fashioned way.  US Civil War era style.  Line up on a field and shoot cannon at each other.

From what I heard, this is not something that can be accomplished simply with bombing/missiles.

Now now.  There is very little that cannot be accomplished with bombing and missiles.  What are you, some kind of American't?


Exactly!  Bombs are right there in the anthem!
 
2013-08-28 10:03:57 AM
So what's that make Bush who didn't care where bin Laden was?
 
2013-08-28 10:04:54 AM
I'm mostly opposed to getting involved at all because every time we do, we fark up, pick the wrong team to root for, and then watch as it all comes back to bite us in the ass.
 
2013-08-28 10:06:09 AM

I_Am_Weasel: I_C_Weener: mrshowrules: I_C_Weener: One way to handle this would be to create a "no fly zone".  In that "no fly zone" if there is artillery capable of firing chemical weapons, it gets destroyed. Same with missile launchers.  Same with any other delivery method.  Period.  Rebels or Assad.

Let them fight it out the old fashioned way.  US Civil War era style.  Line up on a field and shoot cannon at each other.

From what I heard, this is not something that can be accomplished simply with bombing/missiles.

Now now.  There is very little that cannot be accomplished with bombing and missiles.  What are you, some kind of American't?

Exactly!  Bombs are right there in the anthem!


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-28 10:07:14 AM

Mike_LowELL: Here's what I know about this conflict: Whatever Taxbongo does, I will be against it.  It's the only way to save this country from his disastrous policy decisions, whatever side of the issue he may take.


I hear Fartbongo has ordered the DoD to contract with Electronic Arts to release the next version of "America's Army" as a freemium platform.  All proceeds from in-game microtransactions will be funnelled to ACORN and George Soros.
 
2013-08-28 10:09:11 AM

blastoh: I'm mostly opposed to getting involved at all because every time we do, we fark up, pick the wrong team to root for, and then watch as it all comes back to bite us in the ass.


Libya? That seemed to work out alright, didn't it?
 
2013-08-28 10:09:34 AM

bdub77: Maybe the intelligence is really good and strong that Assad did it, but is there not a possibility that Al Qaeda or some similar opposition group deployed chemical weapons against its own people on purpose?


I've considered that as well. I don't think the possibility can be entirely ruled out, but I don't see any motive beyond encouraging western (US/NATO) intervention on their behalf, and I didn't think the rebels' situation was that dire.

I think there's a good chance that if it was Al Qaeda or Hezbollah that got their hands on it, they'd keep it in reserve and try to get it out of Syria so they can use it elsewhere.

At the same time, I don't really see any motive for Assad to use them, either, especially in what appears to be a deliberate terrorist attack. He had to know the response such an action would provoke.
 
2013-08-28 10:09:39 AM
What exactly can be accomplished here without boots on the ground?

Are they going after the leadership (Assad)? (Probably elicit a hardened response from Russia/China)

Target the delivery systems for future chemical weapons? (How good is our intelligence on this)

Destroy CW stockpiles? (Probably tough considering they can be hidden pretty easily)

It's challenging see how a few days of bombardment will do anything but prolong the conflict and make a bigger mess of things by creating a bit more parity on the ground and forcing more small arms engagement (vs. artillery bombardments and mechanized engagements).

This one will be 100x more interesting than Libya (as it has been compared to).  Location is key, and the war noise is picking up from all directions.
 
2013-08-28 10:10:43 AM
Easy, less expensive solution:
Pull all our resources out of the Middle East and let Allah sort it out.
 
2013-08-28 10:11:40 AM

I_C_Weener: xanadian: An article written by someone who doesn't fully understand or appreciate all the silly nuances regarding the Syria issue.

Does anyone?


Well Duh

Iran is backing Assad. The Gulf states are against Assad.

Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But the Gulf states are pro-Sisi, Which means they are against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.

The Gulf states are mostly pro-U.S, but Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad even though Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi.

And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states.

See, that's not so difficult to understand, is it? If you're still having trouble, here's a handy chart:

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-08-28 10:13:37 AM
sorry for the repeatbut the discussions of why whynot and who are really moot, Bandar is adamant: ''There is no escape from the military option.''

its will be war, so set back and enjoy the enevitable
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report