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.

(Chron)   Iran works with Russia to stop the US from attacking Syria by threatening to attack Israel. I guess it's pretty serious   (chron.com) divider line 187
    More: Followup, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syrian President Bashar Assad, U.S. Naval, Hassan Rowhani, Heads of state of Syria, President of Iran  
•       •       •

5602 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-29 08:13:36 AM
I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.
 
2013-08-29 08:31:38 AM
Can't we work out a deal with Russia?  How about YOU guys go in there, install a puppet of your choosing and call it a day?
 
2013-08-29 08:35:38 AM

Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.


It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...
 
2013-08-29 08:36:37 AM
From the chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ""The Zionists should know that a U.S. military attack on Syria will not save the fake regime from the resistance but it means the immediate destruction of Israel," he was quoted as saying."
Banking on divine intervention, I presume.
 
2013-08-29 08:41:58 AM
sno man:
It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...

You mean like when Bush said we would NOT tolerate a nuclear best Korea, then when they tested a few nukes we totally did absolutely nothing about it?
 
2013-08-29 08:44:28 AM
Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?
 
2013-08-29 08:49:48 AM

Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?


I think we're all out of Archdukes.
 
2013-08-29 08:50:43 AM

Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?


Like saying "I love you"?
 
2013-08-29 09:10:36 AM

Slaxl: Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

Like saying "I love you"?


"Quit slouching in your chair!"
 
2013-08-29 09:12:51 AM
The US has more than enough Tomahawks to handle that.

unfortunately.
 
2013-08-29 09:18:00 AM
We help, the people will still hate us.

We don't help, the people will still hate us.......
 
2013-08-29 09:31:42 AM

basemetal: We help, the people will still hate us.

We don't help, the people will still hate us.......


This!

How about we let Israel do it so we can flip the double bird to Iran?
 
2013-08-29 09:35:07 AM

basemetal: We help, the people will still hate us.

We don't help, the people will still hate us.......


We need to send our most experienced elder statesmen in Middle Easter affairs to Syria to resolve this conflict. That would be Bush II and Cheney.
 
2013-08-29 09:52:24 AM

Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria.


It's cool.  He's got a Nobel Peace Prize.  He knows what he's doing.
 
2013-08-29 09:52:44 AM
Nothing will happen. Any strike against Israel would be met with a regime-changing response. Syria knows that they'll lose some missile batteries and logistics so widening the war by attacking anyone else is stupid if they want to defeat the rebels and remain power.
 
2013-08-29 09:52:49 AM
Which all goes back to there being zero upside to starting a war with Syria. The consequences will be huge and the benefits are zilch. Expect this whole thing to blow up in our face.
 
2013-08-29 09:52:53 AM

simplicimus: Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

I think we're all out of Archdukes.


ArchDuke archsucks.
 
2013-08-29 09:53:46 AM
The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.
2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).
3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).
 
2013-08-29 09:54:32 AM

lockers: Which all goes back to there being zero upside to starting a war with Syria. The consequences will be huge and the benefits are zilch. Expect this whole thing to blow up in our face.


Last time something "blew up in my face", I wiped it off, replayed the tape to make sure we were all in focus, then called it a day.

/just ice cream
 
2013-08-29 09:56:49 AM
Yup, Cowboys and Muslims.

I scoff at your "reasons" and reasoning. The 1% that run this country do not wish to hear your feeble whimpers.
You will be told when to launch and how high.
 
2013-08-29 09:58:38 AM

Tr0mBoNe: The US has more than enough Tomahawks to handle that.

unfortunately.


And the inventory needs freshening.
 
2013-08-29 09:59:58 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-29 10:01:44 AM

Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.


I agree. If it's really about Assad there are plenty of other ways to take him out. My concern is that the so-called "rebel alliance" ( rebel scum?) doesn't really have the backing of the citizenry. It looks more like every man for himself.
 
2013-08-29 10:02:28 AM
Syrians are killing Syrians.  Which in no way means the US needs to get involved.

What does Obama/Kerry/Hagel want to do ?  Kill Syrians ?    Uhm.... they already are doing that.

No, the US is broke.   The credit cards are maxed out.   We don't need more debt.

If the Euros want to go kill Syrians...let them.   And this time they don't have to tag along on the US's coat tails.   Good luck EU,  have at them...
 
2013-08-29 10:02:31 AM

basemetal: We help, the people will still hate us.

We don't help, the people will still hate us.......


If the US isn't hated for not getting involved in the Second Congo War before it killed 5 million people you probably don't have anything to worry about with Syria.
 
2013-08-29 10:02:51 AM
Iran just sealed Syrias fate.  The West will bomb Syria hoping Iran follows through so they have a valid excuse to bomb Irans nuclear facilities
 
2013-08-29 10:03:54 AM
BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-29 10:07:25 AM

nekom: sno man:
It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...

You mean like when Bush said we would NOT tolerate a nuclear best Korea, then when they tested a few nukes we totally did absolutely nothing about it?


Actually we organized world sanctions against NK in hopes of crippling their ability to produce and/or test nukes, or at least hurt them enough that they stopped. The only problem with that is the NK regime doesn't care how much the people starve so they just funneled more money into the program with great cost to the citizens. So we didn't exactly do nothing, but we did all we could do without starting an all out war that would create more problems than it would solve.

As far as Syria goes, I say let them kill one another and stay out of it.
 
2013-08-29 10:07:57 AM

Gdalescrboz: Iran just sealed Syrias fate.  The West will bomb Syria hoping Iran follows through so they have a valid excuse to bomb Irans nuclear facilities


We wont need to - Iran goes after Israel, Israel will go all spidermonkey on them.
 
2013-08-29 10:08:04 AM

Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?


Not quite. It was lots of allies of fairly equal military capabilities all set up then someone went and did something stupid. I don't think this is quite the case here. One side is at a severe disadvantage, because neither the Russian or Chinese militaries are going to get involved.
 
2013-08-29 10:08:20 AM

nekom: sno man:
It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...

You mean like when Bush said we would NOT tolerate a nuclear best Korea, then when they tested a few nukes we totally did absolutely nothing about it?


You're going to b...b...but Bush using something that was completely on the Clinton administration, in response to something completely on the Obama administration?

Leave your partisanship at the door for once and discuss the current issue like a rational adult.
 
2013-08-29 10:08:23 AM
Every time Iran mentions US action will kick the hornets nest that is the mid east and they'll all take it out on Israel, US media claims Iran said it is going to nuke Israel.
 
2013-08-29 10:08:49 AM

Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.


The US has been angling to attack Syria since at least the early 90's. This is all part of a larger plan to cement US power in the Middle East. Iraq - Syria - Iran. We are trying to make sure all regions in the area around the future Iran-to-Mediterranean Sea oil pipeline are friendly to us, or at least controllable by us. Syria's government is allied with Russia and China, and therefore must go.

I know a lot of people are saying it's just a face-saving maneuver since Obama made the "red line" statement. I don't know if this will convince them otherwise, but I suggest going back through the US's war history - hell, any country's war history - and try to find examples where the stated reason for attacking turned out to be the real reason for attacking.
 
2013-08-29 10:09:33 AM
right...because 'I'm sure' that Iran and Russia are very concerned about this hostile move on the US' part...
 
2013-08-29 10:09:38 AM

Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria.


So we can invade it and then hand all the oil rights over to China, just like what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
2013-08-29 10:11:10 AM
Someone enlighten me: the issue isn't thousands of dead people but rather if they were gassed and who passed the gas? Is this a car full of teenage boys or country of murdering savages?
 
2013-08-29 10:12:12 AM
I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

phobos.ramapo.edu

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.
 
2013-08-29 10:14:05 AM
Saving face is a HORRIBLE reason to kill people, morally and strategically.

Not that I'd put it past Obama, but still.
 
2013-08-29 10:15:22 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

[edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com image 377x237]

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

[phobos.ramapo.edu image 438x267]

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.


Say what you want about Soviets, but Tsar Bomba it was impressive accomplishment
/Only rivaled by Tsar Kolokol and Tsar Pushka
 
2013-08-29 10:15:30 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:


Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here
 
2013-08-29 10:15:55 AM

nekom: Can't we work out a deal with Russia?  How about YOU guys go in there, install a puppet of your choosing and call it a day?


Pooty-poot likes his current puppet juuuust fine, thanks. Our panties are in a wad and he gets to posture as reasonable and supportive in a strongman/reperessor-oriented regoin.
 
2013-08-29 10:16:03 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

[edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com image 377x237]

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

[phobos.ramapo.edu image 438x267]

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.


img.photobucket.com
thedailyshow.mtvnimages.com
 
2013-08-29 10:16:55 AM

LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here


Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?
 
2013-08-29 10:18:05 AM
If Russia and the USA end up in a conflict, will the astronauts on the space station be ordered to fight each other to gain control?
 
2013-08-29 10:18:14 AM

stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?


Just you wait for Tsar Plana
 
2013-08-29 10:18:35 AM

stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?


totallycoolpix.com
 
2013-08-29 10:18:57 AM

Old_Chief_Scott: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

I agree. If it's really about Assad there are plenty of other ways to take him out. My concern is that the so-called "rebel alliance" ( rebel scum?) doesn't really have the backing of the citizenry. It looks more like every man for himself.


It's a religious civil war. Shiia against Sunni.

Helping one side against the other will translate into "the USA has chosen to persecute the Alawite (Shiia) in favor of the Sunni" throughout much of the Islamic world

Reason #1 we shouldn't touch this mess ...
 
2013-08-29 10:20:15 AM
You thought the Iraq civil war was bad? Syria's will be far worse if we get involved. It'll just bring in MORE jihadis, which means they'll fight each other and the locals for being different sects.
 
2013-08-29 10:20:24 AM

LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]


So, Putin is going to use his mind control to send it to the US?
 
2013-08-29 10:20:55 AM

stevenboof: LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]

So, Putin is going to use his mind control to send it to the US?


Worse, the Russians have finally mastered Photoshop.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:08 AM

nekom: Can't we work out a deal with Russia?  How about YOU guys go in there, install a puppet of your choosing and call it a day?


He's your drunk friend Russia, you take care of him.  While you do that, we'll try and clean up the mess he made by sending some aid for those displaced children who made it to the refugee camps.
 
2013-08-29 10:21:40 AM

GRCooper: Old_Chief_Scott: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

I agree. If it's really about Assad there are plenty of other ways to take him out. My concern is that the so-called "rebel alliance" ( rebel scum?) doesn't really have the backing of the citizenry. It looks more like every man for himself.

It's a religious civil war. Shiia against Sunni.

Helping one side against the other will translate into "the USA has chosen to persecute the Alawite (Shiia) in favor of the Sunni" throughout much of the Islamic world

Reason #1 we shouldn't touch this mess ...


The Sunnis are our BFFs in the region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Al qaeda...
 
2013-08-29 10:25:12 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

[edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com image 377x237]

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

[phobos.ramapo.edu image 438x267]

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.


Tsar Bomba was dumb.
It wasn't ICBM deployable
It almost killed the bomber crew.
It was insanely expensive.
Most of it's energy was directed into space.

It was a bad idea.
 
2013-08-29 10:25:22 AM

LasersHurt: stevenboof: LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]

So, Putin is going to use his mind control to send it to the US?

Worse, the Russians have finally mastered Photoshop.


IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA, PHOTOSHOP MASTERS YOU!!1!

/1986...19 farking 86
 
2013-08-29 10:26:04 AM

simplicimus: GRCooper: Old_Chief_Scott: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

I agree. If it's really about Assad there are plenty of other ways to take him out. My concern is that the so-called "rebel alliance" ( rebel scum?) doesn't really have the backing of the citizenry. It looks more like every man for himself.

It's a religious civil war. Shiia against Sunni.

Helping one side against the other will translate into "the USA has chosen to persecute the Alawite (Shiia) in favor of the Sunni" throughout much of the Islamic world

Reason #1 we shouldn't touch this mess ...

The Sunnis are our BFFs in the region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Al qaeda...


Exactly - so let them help the rebels.
 
2013-08-29 10:28:40 AM

AngryDragon: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

[edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com image 377x237]

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

[phobos.ramapo.edu image 438x267]

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.

[img.photobucket.com image 450x360]
[thedailyshow.mtvnimages.com image 480x360]


Did you have an actual argument against TheShavingofOccam123's point, or did you just come into the thread to insult and mock people?
 
2013-08-29 10:28:49 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:



It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.



Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.


Meh, the way things are going, I wasn't expecting to get laid again anyways.
 
2013-08-29 10:29:13 AM
Why does this image pop in my head when I read this thread...

pdxretro.com

Escalation, baby. It's called escalation.
 
2013-08-29 10:30:35 AM

simplicimus: GRCooper: Old_Chief_Scott: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

I agree. If it's really about Assad there are plenty of other ways to take him out. My concern is that the so-called "rebel alliance" ( rebel scum?) doesn't really have the backing of the citizenry. It looks more like every man for himself.

It's a religious civil war. Shiia against Sunni.

Helping one side against the other will translate into "the USA has chosen to persecute the Alawite (Shiia) in favor of the Sunni" throughout much of the Islamic world

Reason #1 we shouldn't touch this mess ...

The Sunnis are our BFFs in the region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Al qaeda...


...Saddam Hussein...
 
2013-08-29 10:30:48 AM

WTF Indeed: Nothing will happen. Any strike against Israel would be met with a regime-changing response. Syria knows that they'll lose some missile batteries and logistics so widening the war by attacking anyone else is stupid if they want to defeat the rebels and remain power.


another twist is any retaliation by Israel will be me with an everyone-attack-israel response from the whole middle east. Remember Gulf War 1? Iraq was doing it's damndest to drag Israel into the war by firing scuds into Tel Aviv but the US managed to convince Israel to not retaliate ( buy whoever made that sale a coke btw ).

Heard on the news this morning that someone in congress asked "how does attacking Syria make the US safer?". That's a really good question and I believe the president has to have an answer in order to use force outside of the UN and congress but i could be wrong. I don't believe the easy answer "but Assad has chemical weapons" is good enough anymore.
 
2013-08-29 10:31:11 AM

YixilTesiphon: simplicimus: GRCooper: Old_Chief_Scott: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

I agree. If it's really about Assad there are plenty of other ways to take him out. My concern is that the so-called "rebel alliance" ( rebel scum?) doesn't really have the backing of the citizenry. It looks more like every man for himself.

It's a religious civil war. Shiia against Sunni.

Helping one side against the other will translate into "the USA has chosen to persecute the Alawite (Shiia) in favor of the Sunni" throughout much of the Islamic world

Reason #1 we shouldn't touch this mess ...

The Sunnis are our BFFs in the region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Al qaeda...

...Saddam Hussein...


CIA puppet
 
2013-08-29 10:31:30 AM
Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Even the biggest nuke ever would only do heavy damage to a couple square miles at most. They aren't the world enders they are in hollywood.

If you do see them used, it will be for the EMP effect. You'll be left alive, only to slowly starve to death or be killed when the supermarkets run out of food.
 
2013-08-29 10:31:48 AM
One would think Israel's got Iran covered. Hell, we've been having to hold Israel back from cleaning their clock more than once.
 
2013-08-29 10:32:16 AM

Gdalescrboz: Iran just sealed Syrias fate.  The West will bomb Syria hoping Iran follows through so they have a valid excuse to bomb Irans nuclear facilities


Yup.  And Iran just installed better centrifuges so you can bet there are people drooling at the chance to rain some cruise missiles down on them.
 
2013-08-29 10:32:41 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Even the biggest nuke ever would only do heavy damage to a couple square miles at most. They aren't the world enders they are in hollywood.

If you do see them used, it will be for the EMP effect. You'll be left alive, only to slowly starve to death or be killed when the supermarkets run out of food.


Was the concept of nuclear winter debunked when I wasn't looking?
 
2013-08-29 10:32:47 AM

simplicimus: GRCooper: Helping one side against the other will translate into "the USA has chosen to persecute the Alawite (Shiia) in favor of the Sunni" throughout much of the Islamic world

Reason #1 we shouldn't touch this mess ...

The Sunnis are our BFFs in the region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Al qaeda...


I was all set to toss Inigo Montoya at you until I reread your list.
 
2013-08-29 10:34:49 AM

LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]


Wrong - tsar bombed had to be dropped from a bomber - the only operation rocket what could that fat bastard into orbit were the Saturn V
 
2013-08-29 10:35:14 AM

lockers: Which all goes back to there being zero upside to starting a war with Syria. The consequences will be huge and the benefits are zilch. Expect this whole thing to blow up in our face.


Expect the British press to beat the drums and try and stir the pot.

They will try to drag the US into some kind of lame action.   Lame would be lobbing a fiew cruise missles.  The US would have to be mindless, literally mindless to get sucked into another expensive action....that solves little.
 
2013-08-29 10:38:55 AM

netcentric: lockers: Which all goes back to there being zero upside to starting a war with Syria. The consequences will be huge and the benefits are zilch. Expect this whole thing to blow up in our face.

Expect the British press to beat the drums and try and stir the pot.

They will try to drag the US into some kind of lame action.   Lame would be lobbing a fiew cruise missles.  The US would have to be mindless, literally mindless to get sucked into another expensive action....that solves little.


We're good and f*cked, aren't we?
 
2013-08-29 10:39:24 AM

ciberido: Did you have an actual argument against TheShavingofOccam123's point, or did you just come into the thread to insult and mock people?


Since I can't seem to figure out what a non-operational test nuclear device (Tsar Bomba), Hiroshima, and missile strikes in Syria have in common, or even apply in this context, I'm going with mocking.

Even if the Russians had another Tsar Bomba, it was useless as a combat weapon.
Hiroshima was the first nuclear detonation.  No one knew the full effects of atomic weapons at the time.
Neither of them have anything to do with tactical, conventional strikes in Syria unless it is to use nuclear weapons as a fear tactic.

There are enough reasons not to get involved in Syria without trying to manufacture more.
 
2013-08-29 10:39:57 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Was the concept of nuclear winter debunked when I wasn't looking?


It would seem so.
 
2013-08-29 10:41:17 AM

Publikwerks: LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]

Wrong - tsar bombed had to be dropped from a bomber - the only operation rocket what could that fat bastard into orbit were the Saturn V


Wow, grammer hard.

Anyway, what I meat was the Saturn V was the only rocket capable of lifting the 27,000 K bomb into orbit that I know of...
 
2013-08-29 10:41:57 AM
I've come to the conclusion that Republicans unnecessarily beat the drum on action in Syria to lure the President in so that one of three things would happen:

1)  They'd embarass him in front of the entire world
2)  They'd finally have an impeachable offense
3)  WWIII could be put on him
 
2013-08-29 10:41:58 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Even the biggest nuke ever would only do heavy damage to a couple square miles at most. They aren't the world enders they are in hollywood.

If you do see them used, it will be for the EMP effect. You'll be left alive, only to slowly starve to death or be killed when the supermarkets run out of food.

Was the concept of nuclear winter debunked when I wasn't looking?


Sort of, the theory is still there but real world events that should have had the same effect ( Iraqi oil field fires, large volcano eruptions ) did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

In my mind the long lasting effects from global nuclear warfare would be economic and disease. You can count on total economic collapse and a rise in various cancers and birth defects from radiation exposure. I believe everything else would follow from those two long lasting catastrophes.
 
2013-08-29 10:42:57 AM

Publikwerks: LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]

Wrong - tsar bombed had to be dropped from a bomber - the only operation rocket what could that fat bastard into orbit were the Saturn V


  + totallycoolpix.com
 
2013-08-29 10:43:30 AM

Agarista: BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

[claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com image 314x475]


Yes, neoconservatism is clearly the answer. It's worked so well for us.
 
2013-08-29 10:45:25 AM
www.jpattitude.com+ img.fark.net
FTFM
 
2013-08-29 10:45:35 AM

J. Frank Parnell: UrukHaiGuyz: Was the concept of nuclear winter debunked when I wasn't looking?

It would seem so.


Skimmed through that thread, and it still seems fairly inconclusive what type of climactic disruptions would/could occur. What doesn't seem uncertain is that a large-scale nuclear war would kill billions through disruptions to the food supply chain alone. So....yeah.
 
2013-08-29 10:45:41 AM

AngryDragon: ciberido: Did you have an actual argument against

TheShavingofOccam123's point, or did you just come into the thread to insult and mock people?

Since I can't seem to figure out what a non-operational test nuclear device (Tsar Bomba), Hiroshima, and missile strikes in Syria have in common, or even apply in this context, I'm going with mocking.

Even if the Russians had another Tsar Bomba, it was useless as a combat weapon.
Hiroshima was the first nuclear detonation.  No one knew the full effects of atomic weapons at the time.
Neither of them have anything to do with tactical, conventional strikes in Syria unless it is to use nuclear weapons as a fear tactic.

There are enough reasons not to get involved in Syria without trying to manufacture more.


Fair enough.
 
2013-08-29 10:48:28 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-29 10:49:28 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.


Ok. How about some pre-cold war era hysteria instead? Here's why we invented that little burp called Hiroshima.

Harry Truman, on the approach to approving the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said he didn't want
"another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."

 Well, let's examine Okinawa and see why it was so bad and so fore-boding...

In the battle of Okinawa, 250,000 people were killed in a battle over 463 square miles that lasted 82 days.
Among US losses were 12 destroyers and 768 aircraft.

Now let's expand that to match the size of Japan's 4 main islands. They are 302 times larger than Okinawa. The math yields the following:

The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

*Uh, depending on the breaks.
 
2013-08-29 10:53:07 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Ok. How about some pre-cold war era hysteria instead? Here's why we invented that little burp called Hiroshima.

Harry Truman, on the approach to approving the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said he didn't want
"another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."

 Well, let's examine Okinawa and see why it was so bad and so fore-boding...

In the battle of Okinawa, 250,000 people were killed in a battle over 463 square miles that lasted 82 days.
Among US losses were 12 destroyers and 768 aircraft.

Now let's expand that to match the size of Japan's 4 main islands. They are 302 times larger than Okinawa. The math yields the following:

The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

*Uh, depending on the breaks.


Meh, we should have dropped it on Tokyo.
 
2013-08-29 10:53:18 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Ok. How about some pre-cold war era hysteria instead? Here's why we invented that little burp called Hiroshima.

Harry Truman, on the approach to approving the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said he didn't want
"another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."

 Well, let's examine Okinawa and see why it was so bad and so fore-boding...

In the battle of Okinawa, 250,000 people were killed in a battle over 463 square miles that lasted 82 days.
Among US losses were 12 destroyers and 768 aircraft.

Now let's expand that to match the size of Japan's 4 main islands. They are 302 times larger than Okinawa. The math yields the following:

The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

*Uh, depending on the breaks.


It doesn't work like that.
 
2013-08-29 10:54:22 AM

netcentric: The US would have to be mindless, literally mindless to get sucked into another expensive action....that solves little.


The course is laid. Come hell or high water, we are going to get involved in this unpopular mess. At this point the only rational course is to paint everyone cheerleading this as the deluded chicken hawks they are. Remind them constantly of just how insipid and disastrous this course of action is. The only reason they can give is to stop chemical attacks, which this has zero chance of accomplishing. What the result will be is to create another Iran and 9/11. This will be Obama's legacy and it will not be a kind one.
 
2013-08-29 10:56:19 AM

muck4doo: TheShavingofOccam123: J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Ok. How about some pre-cold war era hysteria instead? Here's why we invented that little burp called Hiroshima.

Harry Truman, on the approach to approving the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said he didn't want
"another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."

 Well, let's examine Okinawa and see why it was so bad and so fore-boding...

In the battle of Okinawa, 250,000 people were killed in a battle over 463 square miles that lasted 82 days.
Among US losses were 12 destroyers and 768 aircraft.

Now let's expand that to match the size of Japan's 4 main islands. They are 302 times larger than Okinawa. The math yields the following:

The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

*Uh, depending on the breaks.

It doesn't work like that.


I'll go a long way to fit in a Dr. Strangelove quote...
 
2013-08-29 10:57:48 AM
TheShavingofOccam123:
It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Tsar Bomba was an interesting development, but basically everybody agrees that it has pretty much no strategic value.  It was simply an exercise in nationalism.
 
2013-08-29 11:02:17 AM

Nightjars: TheShavingofOccam123:
It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Tsar Bomba was an interesting development, but basically everybody agrees that it has pretty much no strategic value.  It was simply an exercise in nationalism.


Like our retarded forays into the Middle East over the last decade?
 
2013-08-29 11:05:01 AM

LasersHurt: stevenboof: LewDux: stevenboof: LasersHurt: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

Is someone going to release Tsar Bomba II or what is your thing here

Does Russia even have the means to transport Tsar Bomba anywhere near the US?

[totallycoolpix.com image 850x597]

So, Putin is going to use his mind control to send it to the US?

Worse, the Russians have finally mastered Photoshop.


 I heard they sold their Photoshop abilities to Iran.
 
2013-08-29 11:05:53 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Nightjars: TheShavingofOccam123:
It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Tsar Bomba was an interesting development, but basically everybody agrees that it has pretty much no strategic value.  It was simply an exercise in nationalism.

Like our retarded forays into the Middle East over the last decade?


The spice must flow.
 
2013-08-29 11:06:25 AM

chasd00: the US managed to convince Israel to not retaliate ( buy whoever made that sale a coke btw ).


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-29 11:09:08 AM
If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.
 
2013-08-29 11:09:33 AM

nekom: sno man:
It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...

You mean like when Bush said we would NOT tolerate a nuclear best Korea, then when they tested a few nukes we totally did absolutely nothing about it?


B b b but "that's different" (tm)
 
2013-08-29 11:13:35 AM

Spare Me: If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.


A race war is a war. It's not a NASCAR event.
 
2013-08-29 11:14:04 AM

Publikwerks: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

[edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com image 377x237]

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

[phobos.ramapo.edu image 438x267]

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.

Tsar Bomba was dumb.
It wasn't ICBM deployable
It almost killed the bomber crew.
It was insanely expensive.
Most of it's energy was directed into space.

It was a bad idea.


When you're in a dick-waving contest, bigger is always better. It didn't need to be practical, it just needed to be BIG. And it was.
 
2013-08-29 11:14:51 AM

AngryDragon: ciberido: Did you have an actual argument against TheShavingofOccam123's point, or did you just come into the thread to insult and mock people?

Since I can't seem to figure out what a non-operational test nuclear device (Tsar Bomba), Hiroshima, and missile strikes in Syria have in common, or even apply in this context, I'm going with mocking.

Even if the Russians had another Tsar Bomba, it was useless as a combat weapon.
Hiroshima was the first nuclear detonation.  No one knew the full effects of atomic weapons at the time.
Neither of them have anything to do with tactical, conventional strikes in Syria unless it is to use nuclear weapons as a fear tactic.

There are enough reasons not to get involved in Syria without trying to manufacture more.


I agree, but to nitpick, the Trinity test at Alamagordo was the first nuke detonation, not Hiroshima.
 
2013-08-29 11:17:55 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Spare Me: If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.

A race war is a war. It's not a NASCAR event.


New definition of "lunatic fringe": somebody who thinks Rand Paul wants a race war.

He is far too much of a social conservative for my tastes, but NSA spying on citizens and endless war are more important issues.
 
2013-08-29 11:18:14 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.


Yeah, i know that's what they teach in US schools now.

Lets see what everyone directly involved at the time had to say.
 
2013-08-29 11:19:49 AM

Mike_1962: AngryDragon: ciberido: Did you have an actual argument against TheShavingofOccam123's point, or did you just come into the thread to insult and mock people?

Since I can't seem to figure out what a non-operational test nuclear device (Tsar Bomba), Hiroshima, and missile strikes in Syria have in common, or even apply in this context, I'm going with mocking.

Even if the Russians had another Tsar Bomba, it was useless as a combat weapon.
Hiroshima was the first nuclear combat detonation.  No one knew the full effects of atomic weapons at the time.
Neither of them have anything to do with tactical, conventional strikes in Syria unless it is to use nuclear weapons as a fear tactic.

There are enough reasons not to get involved in Syria without trying to manufacture more.

I agree, but to nitpick, the Trinity test at Alamagordo was the first nuke detonation, not Hiroshima.


Fair enough, FTFM
 
2013-08-29 11:21:19 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Spare Me: If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.

A race war is a war. It's not a NASCAR event.


That's a dumb comment. I guess you like all the wars then. I prefer someone who actually values and follows the Constitution, but that's just me I guess.
 
2013-08-29 11:21:20 AM

YixilTesiphon: chasd00: the US managed to convince Israel to not retaliate ( buy whoever made that sale a coke btw ).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 180x240]


hm
someone make a website where I can point it an address and make a payment have a coke sent to them. buythatmanacoke.com or something...
 
2013-08-29 11:25:58 AM
      07/31/2013 01:31:23 PM MDT

UN experts to probe alleged Syria chemical attacks

In a letter to the secretary-general the following day, then-U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the United States had determined that the nerve agent sarin was used in the March 19 attack on Khan al-Assal and also in an April 13 attack on the Aleppo neighborhood of Shaykh Maqsud. She said unspecified chemicals, possibly including chemical warfare agents, were used May 14 in an attack on Qasr Abu Samrah and in a May 23 attack on Adra.


Make of it what you will.
 
2013-08-29 11:28:28 AM

sno man: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...


Should it matter that the intended target didn't cross "the line"?
 
2013-08-29 11:29:08 AM

J. Frank Parnell: TheShavingofOccam123: The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

Yeah, i know that's what they teach in US schools now.

Lets see what everyone directly involved at the time had to say.


How about FDR before we even entered the war:

On September 1, 1939 - the first day of World War II in Europe - President Franklin D. Roosevelt appealed to the warring nations to "under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

Curtis LeMay humanely incinerated millions of Japanese civilians long before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Harry Truman served in the trenches in World War I. He understood what protracted long wars of attrition can cost everyone involved.
 
2013-08-29 11:29:49 AM

bluorangefyre: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans unnecessarily beat the drum on action in Syria to lure the President in so that one of three things would happen:

1)  They'd embarass him in front of the entire world
2)  They'd finally have an impeachable offense
3)  WWIII could be put on him


You're right, Obama is the victim in all of this.
 
2013-08-29 11:31:07 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: On September 1, 1939 - the first day of World War II in Europe - President Franklin D. Roosevelt appealed to the warring nations to "under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."


Well that went well (Dresden)...
upload.wikimedia.org
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-08-29 11:31:56 AM

basemetal: We help, the people will still hate us.

We don't help, the people will still hate us.......


I vote for we don't help. Costs less money and lives.
 
2013-08-29 11:34:35 AM

Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?


That has nothing to do with the current situation.

1. There are two sets of allies involved: NATO and Iran-Syria. Iran and Syria are pathetically weak militarily, compared to NATO.
2. Russia and Iran aren't allies. Neither are Syria and Russia. Russia has an interest in Syria, but no mutual defense pact.

Just as when Israel hit Russian missiles in Syria recently, or when the U.shiat Iraq a zillion times with missiles in the '90s, or when the U.shiat Afghanistan with missiles in the '90s, there will be no geopolitical consequences to the U.shiatting Syria with missiles. Zip, nada, nil. I'm not sure how much good it might do, but there's no real potential for blowback, especially if the whole of NATO and the EU is behind it.
 
2013-08-29 11:35:07 AM

Dr Dreidel: The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.
2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).
3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).



So in other words...

i47.tinypic.com

Business as usual, then?
 
2013-08-29 11:38:57 AM

mbillips: Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

That has nothing to do with the current situation.

1. There are two sets of allies involved: NATO and Iran-Syria. Iran and Syria are pathetically weak militarily, compared to NATO.
2. Russia and Iran aren't allies. Neither are Syria and Russia. Russia has an interest in Syria, but no mutual defense pact.

Just as when Israel hit Russian missiles in Syria recently, or when the U.shiat Iraq a zillion times with missiles in the '90s, or when the U.shiat Afghanistan with missiles in the '90s, there will be no geopolitical consequences to the U.shiatting Syria with missiles. Zip, nada, nil. I'm not sure how much good it might do, but there's no real potential for blowback, especially if the whole of NATO and the EU is behind it.


Awesome
 
2013-08-29 11:44:56 AM

Spare Me: TheShavingofOccam123: Spare Me: If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.

A race war is a war. It's not a NASCAR event.

That's a dumb comment. I guess you like all the wars then. I prefer someone who actually values and follows the Constitution, but that's just me I guess.


Yeah, values the Constitution. Except for the Interstate Commerce clause, the 4th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment. When I'm looking for a constitutional scholar, I always go to the shakily credentialed ophthalmologist first.
 
2013-08-29 11:46:11 AM
There was some asshat on the news today saying that american can't be an isolationist nation in this because the last time we did that WW1 and WW2 happend. I wanted to choke him. Let the Syrians kill themselves if it expands outside of their boarders, then we should probably step in.
 
2013-08-29 11:47:06 AM

mbillips: Spare Me: TheShavingofOccam123: Spare Me: If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.

A race war is a war. It's not a NASCAR event.

That's a dumb comment. I guess you like all the wars then. I prefer someone who actually values and follows the Constitution, but that's just me I guess.

Yeah, values the Constitution. Except for the Interstate Commerce clause, the 4th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment. When I'm looking for a constitutional scholar, I always go to the shakily credentialed ophthalmologist first.


Yes, let's focus on an early statement about something that will never be changed rather than worrying about real live people getting killed today.
 
2013-08-29 11:50:59 AM
Thank you, Simone.
img.geocaching.com
 
2013-08-29 11:59:43 AM

nekom: Can't we work out a deal with Russia?  How about YOU guys go in there, install a puppet of your choosing and call it a day?


I like that plan. Lets go with it.
 
2013-08-29 12:00:11 PM

groppet: There was some asshat on the news today saying that american can't be an isolationist nation in this because the last time we did that WW1 and WW2 happend. I wanted to choke him. Let the Syrians kill themselves if it expands outside of their boarders, then we should probably step in.


Christ.  So not wanting to intervene in a nation's internal affairs is isolationist now?  What retard said that?
 
2013-08-29 12:02:57 PM
I found this to be strangely fitting for the news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSX5Kh40AjM
 
2013-08-29 12:03:27 PM

stuffy: nekom: Can't we work out a deal with Russia?  How about YOU guys go in there, install a puppet of your choosing and call it a day?

I like that plan. Lets go with it.


Wasn't the last time we let Russia get away with setting up their own puppet in North Korea?
 
2013-08-29 12:06:07 PM

J. Frank Parnell: TheShavingofOccam123: The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

Yeah, i know that's what they teach in US schools now.

Lets see what everyone directly involved at the time had to say.


Out of your list only two of those people had privy to the ultra intercepts regarding Japan's tactical situation and the communication between Foreign Minister Togo and the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow Sato. Leahy and MacArthur.

Leahy was still pissed the USN was not allowed to blockade Japan into submission. He was further pissed that the USN did not have sole control over nuclear weapons along with the post war air force getting a ton of funding.

MacArthur was borderline paranoid. The Ultra intercepts showed the Japanese had twice the strength on Kyushu than expected for the November invasion. Post war records show three times as many opposition expected for operation Olympic. Mac chose to ignore the intelligence since he wanted his invasion. (also see Chinese entrance to Korean War).

If you read the actual transcripts between Togo and Sato it is clear that Japan was not ready to surrender. As to the claims they wanted to surrender, yes they did, on their terms. They wanted to keep Korea, Manchuria, no American occupation, no war crimes, and keep the emperor not just as a figure head, but as an imperial leader along with the current regime. No democratic elections.

The thumbnail sketch above is based on classified intercepts that were not released until the late 1970's and ongoing until the 1990's. That's why it was never mentioned in Truman's autobiography or mentioned by Admiral King or General Marshal.

There was a conference slated where Admiral King was going to withdraw the Navy's approval for Operation Olympic based on Ultra and radio intercept intelligence. Marshall was probably going to agree with him and sort of leave MacArthur out to hang himself. But the Japanese surrendered so it all came to naught.

Last note....on some of the quotes thrown around the web. If you see any sourced by an author Gar Alperovitz just disregard them. His work have been discredited by modern historians. He was caught twisting and altering facts as well as truncating quotes. But he is still a left over star for the left.
 
2013-08-29 12:07:28 PM

YixilTesiphon: chasd00: the US managed to convince Israel to not retaliate ( buy whoever made that sale a coke btw ).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 180x240]


DAMNIT!  Can we at least lace the Coke with nitro glycerin?
 
2013-08-29 12:09:03 PM

BigNumber12: bluorangefyre: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans unnecessarily beat the drum on action in Syria to lure the President in so that one of three things would happen:

1)  They'd embarass him in front of the entire world
2)  They'd finally have an impeachable offense
3)  WWIII could be put on him

You're right, Obama is the victim in all of this.


Well I find it funny that they were the most vocal ones calling for action, and then all of a sudden, Bonehead... I mean, Boehner says Obama needs to run this through Congress first.
 
2013-08-29 12:13:30 PM

Publikwerks: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope all the people who have a dog in this oil fight remember this picture:

[edgecast.metatube-files.buscafs.com image 377x237]

It is the Tsar Bomba hydrogen bomb detonation. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated.

Now let's compare the Tsar Bomba with other nuclear weapon detonations.

[phobos.ramapo.edu image 438x267]

Hiroshima is the second little nubbin on the lower left.

Hiroshima has killed over 200,000 people so far--it keeps killing people to this day.

I hope people enjoy their oil profits. You're going to end up destroying the world. Literally. Please take your greed and have the hired help shove it up your asses.

Tsar Bomba was dumb.
It wasn't ICBM deployable
It almost killed the bomber crew.
It was insanely expensive.
Most of it's energy was directed into space.

It was a bad idea.


Tsar Bomba was never intended to be a practical weapon. It as a Show of Strength.
 
2013-08-29 12:14:26 PM
Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!
 
2013-08-29 12:17:56 PM

FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!


Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend
 
2013-08-29 12:19:10 PM
Iran ALWAYS threatens to attack Israel. They threaten to attack Israel if their tea is too cold in the morning.
 
2013-08-29 12:19:49 PM

machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend


Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?
 
2013-08-29 12:20:04 PM
Against.  As much as I hate to see people dying in war, chemical attacks included, this is not our fight.
 
2013-08-29 12:21:32 PM

Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.


Maybe it's because Fartbongo knows the chemical weapons came from Iraq.
 
2013-08-29 12:25:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?


You're gonna need:

- way better proof the orders to do this came from the Syrian regime
- an excellent end game
- to actually be defending what it sounds like the President is planning on doing, which is blowing some people up as a token gesture rather than implementing regime change
 
2013-08-29 12:26:59 PM
So here we are talking about the what-ifs, who will become involved, the likely strategies and the potential outcomes...

Did you forget that this whole farking charade is based on a farking false premise?

AssadCo is NOT the party that deployed CW's in Syria. It's a farking lie.

Let that sink in for a moment...

Okay. Got it? Good.

Here's an oldie but a goody:


Independent UK - May 6, 2013

UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria

"A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.

"Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.

"Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.

"This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added."

END QUOTE

2.bp.blogspot.com

If that DOG shiats on the carpet ONE MORE TIME...!!!

i.qkme.me

cdn.stripersonline.com

Justice is served.
 
2013-08-29 12:33:16 PM

YixilTesiphon: cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?

You're gonna need:

- way better proof the orders to do this came from the Syrian regime
- an excellent end game
- to actually be defending what it sounds like the President is planning on doing, which is blowing some people up as a token gesture rather than implementing regime change


Worked in Libya to implement regime change, didn't it? Didn't require 100,000 troops on the ground like Bush's stupidity.

Also it does appear that the US Government is working to prove that as we speak.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-08-29 12:43:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?


The word 'meddling' comes to mind, young man.
We need to stay out of this one.
 
2013-08-29 12:51:32 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Worked in Libya to implement regime change, didn't it? Didn't require 100,000 troops on the ground like Bush's stupidity.


You realize the White House has explicitly said they're not aiming for regime change, right?

And let's not pretend Libya has been a great success.
 
2013-08-29 01:09:53 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Even the biggest nuke ever would only do heavy damage to a couple square miles at most. They aren't the world enders they are in hollywood.



Oh dear god, is this the next message being filtered into the crowd-sourced propaganda mill? Let's all kiss our asses goodbye.
 
2013-08-29 01:14:07 PM

gja: cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?

The word 'meddling' comes to mind, young man.
We need to stay out of this one.


Why? Why are those gassed Syrians not worth our time and effort?
 
2013-08-29 01:14:57 PM

YixilTesiphon: cameroncrazy1984: Worked in Libya to implement regime change, didn't it? Didn't require 100,000 troops on the ground like Bush's stupidity.

You realize the White House has explicitly said they're not aiming for regime change, right?

And let's not pretend Libya has been a great success.


How many civilians are being killed right now by Ghadaffi? Oh right, the answer is 0. Which is the same number of Americans that were casualties in the incident. Sounds successful to me.
 
2013-08-29 01:15:20 PM

RoomFullOfMonkeys: J. Frank Parnell: Man, that cold war era nuke hysteria still hasn't worn off.

Even the biggest nuke ever would only do heavy damage to a couple square miles at most. They aren't the world enders they are in hollywood.


Oh dear god, is this the next message being filtered into the crowd-sourced propaganda mill? Let's all kiss our asses goodbye.


And this is what he said on
His way to armageddon:

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But though I may roam,
I'll come back to my home,
Although it may be
A pile of debris.

Remember, mommy,
I'm off to get a commie,
So send me a salami,
And try to smile somehow.
I'll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-08-29 01:20:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: gja: cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?

The word 'meddling' comes to mind, young man.
We need to stay out of this one.

Why? Why are those gassed Syrians not worth our time and effort?


Because it is NONE OF OUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
Why do you feel we need to be the conscience of the planet?
You do realize we have not been asked to render assistance from anyone that has a right to do so, correct?
We need to learn to mind our own business. Besides, we have work enough to do getting our shiat cleaned up before we go pointing fingers at other countries backyards.
 
2013-08-29 01:29:48 PM
Chant with me libtards RACIST, UNJUST, ILLEGAL WARS!

Or is it ok when fartbama does it?
 
2013-08-29 01:41:42 PM

Gentoolive: Chant with me libtards RACIST, UNJUST, ILLEGAL WARS!

Or is it ok when fartbama does it?


How dare you!  Those anti-war protests will start any second now!

...any second now....

...hmmm...
 
2013-08-29 01:45:07 PM

Gentoolive: Chant with me libtards RACIST, UNJUST, ILLEGAL WARS!

Or is it ok when fartbama does it?


I'll chant with you.

/libtard
//Isn't married to any given president, if they do something illegal, they've done something illegal.
///voted for obama
////slashies for president
 
2013-08-29 01:47:40 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: Agarista: BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

[claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com image 314x475]

Yes, neoconservatism is clearly the answer. It's worked so well for us.


I don't think  he was suggesting that was the correct answer, rather pointing out that that is the plan being followed by the US government including, disappointingly, Obama's administrationi.
 
2013-08-29 01:50:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Why? Why are those gassed Syrians not worth our time and effort?


Something must be done! This is something! Therefore, it must be done!

Missiles aren't magic wands.
 
2013-08-29 01:57:57 PM

AngryDragon: Gentoolive: Chant with me libtards RACIST, UNJUST, ILLEGAL WARS!

Or is it ok when fartbama does it?

How dare you!  Those anti-war protests will start any second now!

...any second now....

...hmmm...


The article concludes, based on interviews with leaders of groups like Code Pink and Peace Action, that Iraq-era anti-war groups are struggling with funding and membership and that enthusiasm for the cause has dissipated among lefty types with Barack Obama in office.

Looks like it's up to you contards. Cons holding an anti-war protest? LOL
 
2013-08-29 02:06:03 PM

Sliding Carp: shifty lookin bleeder: Agarista: BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

[claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com image 314x475]

Yes, neoconservatism is clearly the answer. It's worked so well for us.

I don't think  he was suggesting that was the correct answer, rather pointing out that that is the plan being followed by the US government including, disappointingly, Obama's administrationi.


Now we're blaming this on the Italians??
 
2013-08-29 02:42:48 PM

sno man: Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand.  Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously.  Not that many do in that region anyway...


Seems to me a brilliant bit of parenting.  Draw a line in the sand that says "you will not attack XYZ".  When they cross it, saber rattle some and then draw a new line that says "you will not use chemical weapons" and when they cross it, saber rattle some more.  Then draw a new line in the sand that says "you won't go to all out war with each other" and when they cross it, sit back and laugh hysterically.
 
2013-08-29 03:08:52 PM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
Why so Syrian?
 
2013-08-29 03:20:16 PM

mbillips: Nadie_AZ: Wasn't this the premise for WWI?

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

That has nothing to do with the current situation.

1. There are two sets of allies involved: NATO and Iran-Syria. Iran and Syria are pathetically weak militarily, compared to NATO.
2. Russia and Iran aren't allies. Neither are Syria and Russia. Russia has an interest in Syria, but no mutual defense pact.

Just as when Israel hit Russian missiles in Syria recently, or when the U.shiat Iraq a zillion times with missiles in the '90s, or when the U.shiat Afghanistan with missiles in the '90s, there will be no geopolitical consequences to the U.shiatting Syria with missiles. Zip, nada, nil. I'm not sure how much good it might do, but there's no real potential for blowback, especially if the whole of NATO and the EU is behind it.


Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Iran-Russia relations

As confrontation between the United States and Iran escalates, the country is finding itself further pushed into an alliance with China and Russia. And Iran, like Russia, "views Turkey's regional ambitions and the possible spread of some form of pan-Turkic ideology with suspicion"
 
2013-08-29 03:43:22 PM

bluorangefyre: I've come to the conclusion that Republicans unnecessarily beat the drum on action in Syria to lure the President in so that one of three things would happen:

1)  They'd embarass him in front of the entire world
2)  They'd finally have an impeachable offense
3)  WWIII could be put on him


If the pres does bomb it is NOT an impeachable offense.
Here is the proof,from the War Powers Act.

The Vietnam-era law requires the president to seek approval from Congress after 60 days of military engagement. The law was passed in 1973 after the United States fought the Korean and Vietnam wars without actual declarations of war. But it's always been controversial. (President Nixon actually vetoed the law, but Congress overrode him.)
 
2013-08-29 03:53:17 PM

wolfjc: The Vietnam-era law requires the president to seek approval from Congress after 60 days of military engagement.


Ummm... No.

Here's the text of the War Powers Resolution.


PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.


What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.
 
2013-08-29 03:55:34 PM

Sliding Carp: shifty lookin bleeder: Agarista: BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

[claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com image 314x475]

Yes, neoconservatism is clearly the answer. It's worked so well for us.

I don't think  he was suggesting that was the correct answer, rather pointing out that that is the plan being followed by the US government including, disappointingly, Obama's administrationi.


Well my sarcasm detector is notoriously unreliable, so you may be right.  Perhaps what came across to me as condescension was actually sarcasm.
 
2013-08-29 04:05:32 PM

BullBearMS: What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.


Well, he crapped all over that law with Libya and he wasn't impeached as he ought to have been, so why would he pay attention to it now?
 
2013-08-29 04:13:56 PM

YixilTesiphon: BullBearMS: What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.

Well, he crapped all over that law with Libya and he wasn't impeached as he ought to have been, so why would he pay attention to it now?


Who ever accused Bush or Obama of staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

In this case, Obama is actually worse, because although Bush claimed early on that he could go to war without consulting Congress, in the end, he gave in. Congress passed one authorization for the war in Afghanistan and another for the war in Iraq.
 
2013-08-29 04:15:28 PM

BullBearMS: YixilTesiphon: BullBearMS: What you're talking about is the authorty of the President to react for 60 days without consulting Congress if we are attacked first.

Well, he crapped all over that law with Libya and he wasn't impeached as he ought to have been, so why would he pay attention to it now?

Who ever accused Bush or Obama of staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 800x192]

In this case, Obama is actually worse, because although Bush claimed early on that he could go to war without consulting Congress, in the end, he gave in. Congress passed one authorization for the war in Afghanistan and another for the war in Iraq.


BarryO is really playing "everything you can do I can do better" with all of Bush's worst legacies.
 
2013-08-29 04:16:49 PM

Mose: Sliding Carp: shifty lookin bleeder: Agarista: BAD!

All you naughty monkeys go re-read your Huntington.

[claudiolandi.files.wordpress.com image 314x475]

Yes, neoconservatism is clearly the answer. It's worked so well for us.

I don't think  he was suggesting that was the correct answer, rather pointing out that that is the plan being followed by the US government including, disappointingly, Obama's administrationi.

Now we're blaming this on the Italians??


I surely cannot be the only one to notice that it does not matter which/whose "administration" it happens to be?
Just maybe the "administration" has NOT A FARKING THING to do with it?
 
2013-08-29 04:26:19 PM

Dr Dreidel: The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.
2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).
3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).


nah, i think Israel should totally be the one to deal with this, i mean, they wanted to live over there, they should be prepared to deal with the backlash on their own
 
2013-08-29 04:44:49 PM

BullBearMS: 60


Where in your posted blue page does it talk about 60 days?


Here again from

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 ([1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 [2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]
 
2013-08-29 04:56:26 PM

Panatheist: nah, i think Israel should totally be the one to deal with this, i mean, they wanted to live over there, they should be prepared to deal with the backlash on their own


The backlash wouldn't just be felt in Israel, and it'd be a whole lot stronger than if the US/UN/NATO/some other coalition acted.

Trust me, I think Syria would prefer a handful of US cruise missiles over a months-long campaign by the Israelis. If they begin to doubt that, they can ask Lebanon how it worked out for them.

// also, Israel has no more reason to attack Syria over chemical weapons than anyone else (save for geographic reasons), and Syria hasn't shown intent to use them outside its own borders
 
2013-08-29 04:57:31 PM

wolfjc: BullBearMS: 60

Where in your posted blue page does it talk about 60 days?


Here again from

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 ([1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 [2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]


Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.
 
2013-08-29 05:01:30 PM

simplicimus: Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.


Just a heads up.

You admitted you were lying in that other thread when you made the same lying ass claims.

Now you're trolling about the exact same bullshiat again?
 
2013-08-29 05:05:42 PM
 
2013-08-29 05:07:08 PM

BullBearMS: simplicimus: Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.

Just a heads up.

You admitted you were lying in that other thread when you made the same lying ass claims.

Now you're trolling about the exact same bullshiat again?


Because my claims have evidence?
 
2013-08-29 05:12:29 PM

simplicimus: BullBearMS: simplicimus: Just a heads up, Bull pulled all this crap way earlier up thread. Guess someone took his spot under the bridge so he came back.

Just a heads up.

You admitted you were lying in that other thread when you made the same lying ass claims.

Now you're trolling about the exact same bullshiat again?

Because my claims have evidence?


No. No they don't.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

That is the text of the War Powers Resolution.

Obama broke the law and started an Unconstitutional war in Libya.

Now he wants to do it again in Syria.
Even Bush got authorization from Congress.
 
2013-08-29 05:27:33 PM

Panatheist: Dr Dreidel: The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.
2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).
3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).

nah, i think Israel should totally be the one to deal with this, i mean, they wanted to live over there, they should be prepared to deal with the backlash on their own



Most of the Jews that found themselves in Israel when it became a State did NOT want to be there. They were dragged there, kicking and screaming, by the Zionists (and their Nazi sheep dogs). They would MUCH rather have remained in Europe - but they had no choice.


Dr Dreidel: The backlash wouldn't just be felt in Israel, and it'd be a whole lot stronger than if the US/UN/NATO/some other coalition acted.

Trust me, I think Syria would prefer a handful of US cruise missiles over a months-long campaign by the Israelis. If they begin to doubt that, they can ask Lebanon how it worked out for them.

// also, Israel has no more reason to attack Syria over chemical weapons than anyone else (save for geographic reasons), and Syria hasn't shown intent to use them outside its own borders


This is totally unjustified attack on Syria is Israel's baby. They hate AssadCo, and have been whining for the US to rid them of "WMD's" since before we went apeshiat in Iraq (on Israel's behalf) in 2003. The CIA and the Mossad have been jointly working to train operatives to work on the behalf of the "rebels", said operatives being set loose on their way to Damascus days before the latest CW attack.

Coincidence, right?

Izzy is trying like hell to distance herself from the mess that SHE created (in cooperation with AIPAC fed hawks in the US) - pretending like they played no role, and want nothing to do with it.

Bullshiat.

As shiat hits the fan in Syria, and bits of the stinky stuff blow back onto Israel, Izzy will whine, howl, kvetch and cry - blaming the US for how they're "suffering", and sending us the bill for the trouble, no doubt.


/Standard
//Operating
///Procedure
 
2013-08-29 06:38:31 PM
Bull,
Here's a link to the full WPR. It's far too long to paste.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541
I already pointed out the Nato exclusion for Libya. Still not Obama's war.
 
2013-08-29 06:46:40 PM

simplicimus: I already pointed out the Nato exclusion for Libya. Still not Obama's war.


NATO was in existence for decades before Congress passed this:

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Notice that it does not say unless NATO or unless Obama.

Give it a rest, troll. You've already admitted to being lying about the War Powers Resolution once today.
 
2013-08-29 06:52:06 PM
 
2013-08-29 07:13:06 PM
People keep saying lines in the sand and it reminds me of that old Looney Toons where Bugs and Yosemite are going at it and he says "I dare ya to step across this line" and he keeps stepping over each line Bugs draws until he steps right off of a cliff.  This situation would seem to be apropos.

One article I read said Obama would unlikely help Israel out if Iran were to attack, but since we know that in the past conflicts involving Israel, they pretty much kick ass and take names without having asked for help.  Do I remember right but in Gulf War I, when Sadaam shot scuds that hit Tel Aviv, hadn't Israel pretty much gotten ready to end it right then and there and were scrambling jets with nuclear warheads ready to go straight to Baghdad?
 
2013-08-29 07:47:46 PM
songbookofkartika.files.wordpress.com

"It's a Peace Prize Winner, starting the Third World War"
 
2013-08-30 04:05:27 AM

Amos Quito: Most of the Jews that found themselves in Israel when it became a State did NOT want to be there. They were dragg


Ah! your old 'Holocaust was a jewish conspiracy orchestrated by the 'zionists' for the creation of Israel' conspiracy bullcrap.
If you're going for the classics, why not cherry-pick a single comment, removing it from its context, of Ben Gurion to support your lying bullshiat ?

Amos Quito: This is totally unjustified attack on Syria is Israel's baby.


Why do you 'ease into it' from the beginning of the thread and not just spit it out ? are you ashamed of your anti-semitism ? say it "it was the jews" like you already did, like you blamed the revolution in Egypt on the jews, hell, even like you blamed "the jews" for JFK's murder and so on.

The WMD attacks in Syria were made by Assad's people, based on every evidence collected so far and which will be disclosed in the following week. You think Syrian Alawites slaughtering Syrian Sunnis is a new thing in Syria ? Assad is simply following his father's footsteps. if you're at it, why not blame "the jews" for that one as well ?
 
2013-08-30 11:34:40 AM

TappingTheVein: The WMD attacks in Syria were made by Assad's people, based on every evidence collected so far and which will be disclosed in the following week.


You seem to be leaving out one really huge factor.

The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.
 
2013-08-30 11:47:16 AM

BullBearMS: The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.


You think the US, or  Britain did not collect their own intelligence reports about what happened ?
Does it make sense to you that the anti-Assad side attacked themselves with chemical weapons ? and somehow forced the Syrian troops to prevent UN inspections in those areas ?
 
2013-08-30 01:19:37 PM

TappingTheVein: Does it make sense to you that the anti-Assad side attacked themselves with chemical weapons ?


You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?

A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Do you seriously think Al Qaeda wouldn't gas civilians to try to get us to do something stupid?
 
2013-08-30 01:21:46 PM

BullBearMS: You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?

A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Do you seriously think Al Qaeda wouldn't gas civilians to try to get us to do something stupid?


Obama's administration seems to agree with me.
 
2013-08-30 01:35:14 PM

BullBearMS: You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?


Oh and "the rebels" are not one group, there are many different groups. some secular and democratic, some the worse kind of islamic fundamentalists.
 
2013-08-30 02:00:37 PM

TappingTheVein: BullBearMS: You do realize these "rebels" you are speaking out on behalf of are affiliated with Al Qaeda, don't you?

A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Do you seriously think Al Qaeda wouldn't gas civilians to try to get us to do something stupid?

Obama's administration seems to agree with me.


This guy?

Arriving in the Middle East today for top-level negotiations with Palestinian and Israeli officials, a man who could not even devise a way to beat George W. Bush in a head-to-head vote will spend the next several days attempting to bring a peaceful resolution to the most intractable global conflict of the modern era, State Department sources confirmed. "We are confident that [this person who managed to win just 19 states against George W. Bush, even in the midst of two highly unpopular and costly foreign wars] will be able to establish a framework to bring about lasting peace in the Middle East," said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, stating that the diplomat, who was actually deemed by the American populace to be a worse option than four more years of an administration led by a former baseball team owner and Dick Cheney, could provide the leadership necessary to resolve the bitter, bloody conflict that has raged for more than six decades. "[The individual whose sole goal for more than a year was to make the simple case that he would do a better job than one of the most disliked and poorly rated politicians of all time, and who decisively failed at this singular task] will lay out his bold vision for a road map to peace, and it's one that we believe both Israelis and Palestinians will be very receptive to. Our best hope for a safe, prosperous Middle East lies with [a guy who came in second to a former substance abuser who nearly choked to death on a pretzel]." Sources throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories said they were optimistic about a peace deal, saying they were eager to hear the ideas of the husband of a powerful food-processing heiress.
 
2013-08-30 02:06:23 PM

BullBearMS: This guy?


You think he pulled what he said from his ass without on hand proof and he doesn't have the backing of the Obama administration ?
 
2013-08-30 02:34:33 PM

TappingTheVein: BullBearMS: This guy?

You think he pulled what he said from his ass without on hand proof and he doesn't have the backing of the Obama administration ?


Since the AP, Washington Post, and NY Times are all publishing articles saying the evidence is "no slam dunk" and things like "there is no smoking gun" I'm not willing to say we should do anything before the UN report comes in

No matter how profitable war is.
 
2013-08-30 02:39:42 PM

BullBearMS: Since the AP, Washington Post, and NY Times are all publishing articles saying the evidence is "no slam dunk" and things like "there is no smoking gun" I'm not willing to say we should do anything before the UN report comes in


Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.

BullBearMS: No matter how profitable war is.


And  who cares about a madman's massacre of his own people.
 
2013-08-30 03:11:37 PM

TappingTheVein: BullBearMS: Since the AP, Washington Post, and NY Times are all publishing articles saying the evidence is "no slam dunk" and things like "there is no smoking gun" I'm not willing to say we should do anything before the UN report comes in

Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.

BullBearMS: No matter how profitable war is.

And  who cares about a madman's massacre of his own people.


Sure. Let's just ignore what happened the last time!

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
 
2013-08-30 03:24:25 PM

BullBearMS: Sure. Let's just ignore what happened the last time!

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.


I was under the impression you are aware i'm talking about the latest attack resulting in 1429 dead including 426 children. the same attack Obama's administration was referring to. Now you do.

How many died in the sarin attack by the rebels and which rebel faction was it ?
 
2013-08-30 03:27:28 PM

TappingTheVein: I was under the impression you are aware i'm talking about the latest attack


My goodness, you certainly seem to have your heat set on warmongering when we know that past allegations have proven untrue and that the current allegations are being called "no slam dunk" and "no smoking gun".

Explain to us why we shouldn't wait for the results of the UN investigation given recent history?
 
2013-08-30 03:27:37 PM

BullBearMS: Sure. Let's just ignore what happened the last time!


And from your own link: "but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated".
Contrary to the attack by Assad's forces.
 
2013-08-30 03:30:33 PM

BullBearMS: My goodness, you certainly seem to have your heat set on warmongering when we know that past allegations have proven untrue and that the current allegations are being called "no slam dunk" and "no smoking gun".


my heart is not set on anything, i think something has to be done in Syria but i don't think a US attack will improve the situation.
However i am aware there is undeniable proof that Assad forces used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.

And i repeat since you ignored it:  Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.

BullBearMS: Explain to us why we shouldn't wait for the results of the UN investigation given recent history?


Who said we shouldn't ?
 
2013-08-30 03:40:26 PM

TappingTheVein: i am aware there is undeniable proof that Assad forces used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.


You keep saying that, despite the fact that multiple newspapers are reporting that this is not true.

Why is that?
 
2013-08-30 03:43:06 PM

BullBearMS: You keep saying that, despite the fact that multiple newspapers are reporting that this is not true


Third time:  Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.
Wait for Sunday's papers for the updated info.
 
2013-08-30 04:08:19 PM

TappingTheVein: Articles published days before Kerry made this speech today saying exactly the opposite.


Kerry also said we should totally take down Saddam because of his WMD's.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security
 
2013-08-30 04:20:58 PM

BullBearMS: Kerry also said we should totally take down Saddam because of his WMD's.


If you fail to understand the difference here i can't help you. Maybe go smear the foam coming out of the mouths of hundreds of dead children who died horrific deaths from chemical attacks on your face to get a hint how this is not similar in any way to Iraq.
 
Displayed 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report