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.

(The New York Times)   Russia: No. China: No. UK: No. Democrats: no. Republicans: no. Rest of American people: no. Obama: What?   (nytimes.com) divider line 340
    More: Asinine, Michigan Republicans, Russia, Democrats, Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, United Nations Security Council  
•       •       •

4314 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:40 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-30 10:02:55 AM

Granny_Panties: This isn't about Syria or chemical weapons, it's about making Obama and America look bad.


Correct. That's why people LOVE the "red line" comment - it's vague enough that they can argue that it means whatever they choose, and then argue that Obama is failing to do that/is doing that and it's bad/etc.
 
2013-08-30 10:03:13 AM
The very things Obama ran against are the things he's doing himself.
Wire taps (on a vastly grander scale than GWB)? Check!
Intervening in middle-east squabbles despite public and international outcry? Check!

Do Nobel Peace prizes get revoked?
 
2013-08-30 10:05:02 AM

Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.


That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.

The only thing we should be dropping on Syria at this point is packages of food, water, and medicine.
 
2013-08-30 10:06:37 AM

clkeagle: Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.

The only thing we should be dropping on Syria at this point is packages of food, water, and medicine.


There might be some arguments made about controlling the dissemination of Chemical and other weapons to known Terrorist organizations on the ground. I mean maybe, I don't have the first hand info here, just devil's advocate.
 
2013-08-30 10:07:21 AM

clkeagle: Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.


Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.
 
2013-08-30 10:08:51 AM
I wonder what was revealed at the Russian-called session.
 
2013-08-30 10:09:30 AM

LasersHurt: There might be some arguments made about controlling the dissemination of Chemical and other weapons to known Terrorist organizations on the ground. I mean maybe, I don't have the first hand info here, just devil's advocate.


I would gladly listen to those arguments. But nothing I've seen so far indicates that we have credible enough intelligence to limit strikes to only WMD storage and production facilities.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd love nothing more than to hear about strikes against a confirmed chemical weapons plant - no collateral damage - and no way for either Assad or the rebels (can we be honest and just call them al Qaeda already?) to do anything with what's left.
 
2013-08-30 10:09:55 AM
We should give as good as we got.

During the American Civil War, there was no "assistance" from the Ottoman Empire, the Persians, nor even any nomadic Arab Emirs.

For either side.
 
2013-08-30 10:10:06 AM

James!: LasersHurt: James!: LasersHurt: James!: Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.

Welcome to the last few days, I hope you enjoyed your stay. Coming up: more of the same!

At least everyone got to troll each other about hypothetical shiat.

Good, too, Fark was running low on people trolling eachother about things that aren't happening.

I was worried we we had his Peak Hypothetical Pant Wetting.

Truly it must be a renewable resource.


I see what you did there.
 
2013-08-30 10:11:13 AM

clkeagle: LasersHurt: There might be some arguments made about controlling the dissemination of Chemical and other weapons to known Terrorist organizations on the ground. I mean maybe, I don't have the first hand info here, just devil's advocate.

I would gladly listen to those arguments. But nothing I've seen so far indicates that we have credible enough intelligence to limit strikes to only WMD storage and production facilities.


Nothing we've seen so far indicates that we are GOING to strike any particular thing at all. We just have to wait.
 
2013-08-30 10:11:15 AM

somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


because morality has always been the excuse - never the actual reason
eventually most (not you) start to notice
 
2013-08-30 10:12:01 AM

Nabb1: Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.


Talk about a scenario with no winners.

You know what wouldn't surprise me at this point? Finding out that Putin is supplying both sides of the conflict.
 
2013-08-30 10:13:48 AM

somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.
 
2013-08-30 10:14:09 AM
Even putting aside the potential moral ramifications of ignoring chemical attacks on unarmed civilians, I think it's absolutely silly that we're sitting here discussing whether or not it's in our interests to bomb Syrian chemical weapon sites and potential delivery systems. This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not. At the very least a targeted missile campaign from offshore could cripple his ability to use them or cripple the ability of the rebels to use them if they should get control of them.

You could argue, perhaps, that this could be one of those potential "blowback" situations down the road, but to sit and argue that there is no potential benefit to the U.S. and its allies of a targeted campaign is just absurd. This is shaping up to be one of those things where the American people scream against doing anything and then ten years down the road some extremist asshole steals a couple of warheads from the wrecked country and sets them off in a train station, then people are screaming because we didn't do anything when we had the chance.

/ I'm reminded of Mayor Quimby when I hear most of you talk
// "I'm sick of you people. You're nothing but a bunch of fickle mush heads!"
 
2013-08-30 10:14:53 AM

bindlestiff2600: because morality has always been the excuse - never the actual reason
eventually most (not you) start to notice


so...we shouldn't even bother living up to the image we tout all the time?

oh well, at least you can sleep well at night knowing that your government will never use chemical weapons on you and no one will give a flying fark about it.
 
2013-08-30 10:15:40 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Since we can't declare war on terror again, what will it be this time?  Angst?


The Angst on Terror?

Sounds accurate.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:14 AM

Granny_Panties: And if he doesn't bomb Syria, these same people will say Obama is weak for not sticking to his Red Line.

And if a chemical bomb that originated in Syria goes off in downtown NY, these same people will ask why didn't Obama do anything.

The same type of people that make these political cartoons are the same people that are criticizing him for acting. This isn't about Syria or chemical weapons, it's about making Obama and America look bad.


This. Just thought it needed reinforced.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:35 AM

somedude210: LasersHurt: What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

you mean we're not putting boots on the ground, doing an all out invasion and will be greeted as liberators? How dare you say this is not another Iraq!

/seriously guys, why the fark do you compare this to Iraq?
//if anything, compare to Libya


Libya was also a crime.
 
2013-08-30 10:16:48 AM

CheatCommando: Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.


command decision, no troops on the ground.

but no no, call me a chickenhawk. Heaven forbid we actually try and give a damn about people in this world besides ourselves.
 
2013-08-30 10:18:17 AM
Perhaps we should start by assassinating Assad, and see where it goes from there.
 
2013-08-30 10:18:20 AM

Ned Stark: Libya was also a crime.


so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?
 
2013-08-30 10:19:07 AM

bindlestiff2600: somedude210: I mean I understand that there is massive war weariness because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but when do we stop caring about humanity at large? When do we decide that those people don't matter even when they get gassed because we're tired? We're the largest power in the world. We're the last great superpower. We have the ability to reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds and we can't be bothered to help a people being gassed by their own leaders?

At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?

because morality has always been the excuse - never the actual reason
eventually most (not you) start to notice


I don't think we have ever actually cared much about our fellow humans. Oh some of us do, but historically speaking any time we fought wars there were always solid well defined practical gains for our actions. Morality was never the only reason for our actions.
 
2013-08-30 10:19:26 AM
Russia, China and the UK are out sure, but has he checked in with Poland?


/You forgot about Poland
//Never forget about Poland
 
2013-08-30 10:19:39 AM

Ned Stark: somedude210: LasersHurt: What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

you mean we're not putting boots on the ground, doing an all out invasion and will be greeted as liberators? How dare you say this is not another Iraq!

/seriously guys, why the fark do you compare this to Iraq?
//if anything, compare to Libya

Libya was also a crime.


Farking Reagan.
 
2013-08-30 10:20:27 AM

Ned Stark: Libya was also a crime.



According to whom?
 
2013-08-30 10:20:39 AM
This whole situation is a mess. We should just walk away and let it burn.
 
2013-08-30 10:20:43 AM
So will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make him a war criminal?

Just curious, since the libtards liked to through that accusation at Bush all the time even though he had a UN resolution he could point to to justify his attacks.
 
2013-08-30 10:21:12 AM

Weaver95: I don't think we have ever actually cared much about our fellow humans. Oh some of us do, but historically speaking any time we fought wars there were always solid well defined practical gains for our actions. Morality was never the only reason for our actions.


Oh, please. Next, you'll tell me that we only get involved in major European conflicts when our own commercial trade ships get targetted by submarine attacks...
 
2013-08-30 10:21:19 AM

James!: Wolf_Blitzer: James!: vernonFL: So you are all okay with chemical weapons? Are they not taboo anymore? Because if we do nothing, that is the message we're sending.

I think the hammer should fall and fall hard but I think that the international community needs to step up.  Especially Europe since this shiat is basically a long road trip from happening in their countries.

Most of Europe has spent the last 20 years dismantling their militaries. We've been subsidizing their defense so long, they're practically a U.S. protectorate at this point.

I'm sure that's what Libya thought when France was blowing the shiat out of them.


Libya proves my point completely. The operation was supposed to be Europe's time to shine, a chance for the U.S. to step back from being the world's policeman. But it was U.S. warplanes and missiles that took out the difficult targets at the onset, especially the air defense network. The US then took a backseat in terms of the actual combat operations, but was still providing most of the intelligence, CSAR, and especially aerial refueling, the logistical elements that aren't as visible as the combat jets but are probably even more essential. It was carefully stage-managed to give the appearance of European primacy, but the fact is Libya would've been essentially impossible without U.S. involvement.
 
2013-08-30 10:21:41 AM

LasersHurt: All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.


I think I can guess how this particular shill strategy is going to play out:

Pre-strikes it's all 'calm down, Obama hasn't definitely said he's going to do anything.'
Once the strikes have happened, it'll be 'well, if you had a problem with Obama getting involved, perhaps you should have been more vocal at the time. No use getting outraged now'.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:21 AM

somedude210: At what point did we go from the last great superpower to country of moral cowards?


When the second plane hit the twin towers.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:21 AM

somedude210: Ned Stark: Libya was also a crime.

so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?


Benghazi? Who gives a shiat about some ambassador? Go derp somewhere else.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:42 AM

vestona22: So will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make him a war criminal?

Just curious, since the libtards liked to through that accusation at Bush all the time even though he had a UN resolution he could point to to justify his attacks.


It's like having to consider different things differently physically HURTS some people.

The Numbers: LasersHurt: All he has said is we'll still probably do something. Everyone seems to be reading in a lot of specifics that nobody in power seems to be actually saying - though maybe I'm wrong and the media is just so bad at their jobs that it can't be easily sussed out.

What it seems like, though, is a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

I think I can guess how this particular shill strategy is going to play out:

Pre-strikes it's all 'calm down, Obama hasn't definitely said he's going to do anything.'
Once the strikes have happened, it'll be 'well, if you had a problem with Obama getting involved, perhaps you should have been more vocal at the time. No use getting outraged now'.


No, don't stroke your "the world isn't fair" boner on my post. Not for you.
 
2013-08-30 10:22:47 AM

somedude210: so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?


If these idiots really thought that the action in Libya was criminal they'd have to acknowledge that nearly every conflict we've engaged in since the World War II was also criminal and that would entail admitting that some of their golden idols were, in fact, criminals just like that Obammy fellow.

So instead of actually taking any action they'll just continue to make empty, brainless and pointless statements about it and hope it erodes public confidence. It's the promise of the new American conservative movement. If they can't have America, nobody can.
 
2013-08-30 10:23:05 AM

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....so what are we gonna do? Bomb Syria. Because reasons!

I really hope we don't do this. Enough with the bombings already.


I'm tired of being the World Police. I thought it was stupid in the 80's, when I was in high school, and I think it's stupid now.

That said, can you really blame Obama? Nothing he does will be the "right" thing with these assholes on the Right, maybe he's going with his conscience on this. I still don't want to go bomb another country that's not a threat to us, but I can at least understand why he might be holding out. If nothing else, he may be waiting for the farking GOP to flip flop and then he will end up doing the "right" thing in their eyes. I still hope that we don't do anything, especially if we don't have the backing of the rest of the world.

But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.
 
2013-08-30 10:23:07 AM
Nabb1:

Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.

i267.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-30 10:23:22 AM

Nabb1: clkeagle: Cinaed: Well, we got into two wars where no one involved is exactly an ally.  It's almost like we realized there's no way to 'win' those sorts of conflicts.

That's my problem with the idea of strikes of any kind... there's no clear objective. Our only interest needs to be helping the civilian population. Bombing Assad doesn't help, and will almost certainly have civilian casualties.

Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.


Then we finally get a chance to finish what the Cold War started, xonquor Russia and China, uniting the world under US Hegemony, bringing a worldwide golden age of peace and prosperity for everyone.

/you can twist these hypotheticals to any conclusion you wish
 
2013-08-30 10:23:53 AM
Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?
 
2013-08-30 10:24:20 AM
I think this is the key:

"The President must continue to make it clear that any military action he might pursue is for the sole purpose of deterring Assad from using chemical weapons again and is not a pretext for tilting the conflict in favor of the poorly organized and divided rebel forces. "

There are a lot of policy options on Syria that rank from terrible to sub-optimal. We clearly can't don't have the willpower to win the war for the rebels, and we don't know if we want to. Even the normally pro-interventionists are iffy on this one as it's just simply too complicated - it's not Libya.

In addition, we don't know if we can prevent further chemical weapons attacks because intelligence on where they are stored/produced is incomplete and/or outdated because of the situation on the ground. That said, it is very strongly agreed that the nonproliferation argument for some sort of intervention is much more important than the humanitarian one. Violators of the norm that WMDs should not be used need to be slapped down as hard as possible in order to dissuade others.

Therefore, the best the U.S. can do is destroy/capture the weapons it can find and bomb the crap out of the Syrian army units that can be identified as having used them. I'm all for that, but the messaging will be very, very difficult to get right. In fact, it might be a battle that has already been lost.
 
2013-08-30 10:25:51 AM

gnosis301: Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?


Well, we tried to give the world a coke and that didn't work.
 
2013-08-30 10:29:10 AM

somedude210: CheatCommando: Recruiting office is thattaway, Oh Brave Hero.

command decision, no troops on the ground.

but no no, call me a chickenhawk. Heaven forbid we actually try and give a damn about people in this world besides ourselves.


You are the one calling for spending blood and treasure while sitting behind a keyboard. I think you fit the dictionary definition of chickenhawk very neatly.

Our military should be used to further compelling national interests, and for nothing more. I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time. Make one, and I will warn you that "what they are doing is wrong and we have the power to stop it" is not one.
 
2013-08-30 10:29:11 AM
I support bombing Syria because of its use of nerve gas.


NPR interviewed a retired general this morning who explained they went to nerve agents as the rebels had been occupying a Damascus neighborhood, were using anti-aircraft missiles to keep government aircraft away. So the Syrian government went to gas warfare to make the rebels withdraw.

I understand everyone's issues with Iraq as I was really pissed about that myself. However, this appears not to be the case.

Sometimes the only superpower has to act to enforce international law, like in Kosovo, etc.
 
2013-08-30 10:29:37 AM

Ned Stark: Benghazi? Who gives a shiat about some ambassador? Go derp somewhere else.


no, I'm saying that if Libya was an actual crime, Benghazi would've been the spark that would've started the impeachment proceedings, but that never got off the ground. So I say again, where is this crime in Libya?
 
2013-08-30 10:30:11 AM
Don't forget Grumpy!

cdn.grumpycats.com
 
2013-08-30 10:30:24 AM

ourbigdumbmouth: Like a spoiled rich kid, he will do whatever he wants because shut up you are stupid


It makes for a good argument that the president is controlled by another interest. You decide which one you think it is. Bankers, military industrial complex, Israel, reptilian shape-shifters. Either way, he is just another puppet.
 
2013-08-30 10:30:53 AM
sorry Obama, nobel peace prize winner, but maybe you slept through GWB's phony war?

Anyway, we're just not seeing murdering thousands of brown people as the answer to someone murdering hundreds of brown people.
 
2013-08-30 10:32:06 AM

skozlaw: somedude210: so where's your impeachment? If it was really a crime, you could easily use Benghazi as a reason to open an impeachment proceeding, but it apparently isn't or we'd have had it, wouldn't we?

If these idiots really thought that the action in Libya was criminal they'd have to acknowledge that nearly every conflict we've engaged in since the World War II was also criminal and that would entail admitting that some of their golden idols were, in fact, criminals just like that Obammy fellow.

So instead of actually taking any action they'll just continue to make empty, brainless and pointless statements about it and hope it erodes public confidence. It's the promise of the new American conservative movement. If they can't have America, nobody can.


Pretty much every conflict the US has engaged in since WW2 has been criminal.

What golden idols have I asserted to exist? I am not aware that I have erected any.
 
2013-08-30 10:32:20 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: In fact, it might be a battle that has already been lost.


Because Americans are petty, ignorant and fickle.

Basically, we seem to be in a situation where a huge portion of America mindlessly acceded to the invasion of Iraq and didn't hold Bush accountable for his abandonment of Afghanistan and the deterioration we saw there for our troops that were left behind, so now they're going to take their frustration and fatigue over their own terrible decision-making out on Syria by.... mindlessly rejecting the possibility of any sort of intervention.

I can't respect the opinion that says we shouldn't even try to protect innocents in the conflict from something as heinous as chemical attacks, but at least I can understand it. But the knee-jerk opposition doesn't even seem to rise to THAT level becasue if it did at least the opponents should be smart enough to see that there is an interest in both dissuading others who might try to use these weapons on populations or our own troops in the future AND an opportunity to try and weaken the ability of an unstable country and its dictator to disseminate (willfully or otherwise) weapons that could be eventually used against us by terror groups.

What's so frustrating is that Americans refuse to think about anything. They just knee-jerk went along with the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, got burned, so now they're just going to swing completely in the opposite direction. And then we'll sit around five years later wondering how some crazy al quaeda agent who had been fighting in Syria to set off a sarin bomb in the middle of the Super Bowl or something and why nothing was done to prevent it.

I mean, there's plenty of reasons not to get involved in any great detail, a few not to do anything, but people are just basically saying "No Syria because I farked up with Iraq" and that's just stupid.
 
2013-08-30 10:33:16 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Nabb1:

Sets the stage to draw Israel in, Iran attacks Israel, we go to war with Iran. China and Russia are a touch cozy with Iran, hence their backing of Assad, who has Iran's support. Putin is pulling Obama's strings at this point.

[i267.photobucket.com image 452x472]


LOL. Come on, man, work with me here. It's Friday.
 
2013-08-30 10:34:00 AM
Obama needs to take people's attention from all the evil shiat he's been caught at home, so it's bombing time!
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report