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  
•       •       •

4315 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:40 AM (1 year 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 10:34:13 AM

CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.


The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.
 
2013-08-30 10:34:28 AM

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


According to my father, the conflicts we took part in in South America during the 1980s don't count as criminal because the Monroe Doctrine and that Grenada was a threat to our security
 
2013-08-30 10:34:48 AM

LasersHurt: 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.


And they say Republicans are the ones who always bring cocks into things :)

Genuine question Lasers, how much notice are you expecting to be given about the action Obama takes? I mean, do you think he's going to announce beforehand when and where strikes would occur?
 
2013-08-30 10:34:56 AM
How's that "He knows what's best for us and will save us in spite of ourselves." sh*t treating you?
 
2013-08-30 10:35:12 AM

AirForceVet: 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.


This. There are no good options here because the Syrian rebels aren't exactly good guys. But if we let this go, we're telling the world that it's okay to gas civilians, as long as they're people we don't like.
 
2013-08-30 10:35:41 AM
If we bomb anyone, anywhere it should be once and for all with a devastating nuclear attack.
Get their attention and tell them to behave.

Any way this goes, Obama looks as ad as he actually is, which isn't a bad thing.
 
2013-08-30 10:36:24 AM

Ned Stark: What golden idols have I asserted to exist? I am not aware that I have erected any.


Unless you've personally become the "American conservative movement" I wasn't talking directly to you, now was I, Sparky? I know your scheme is to reflexively play that silly "both sides are bad" game, that's why I basically ignore you.
 
2013-08-30 10:36:50 AM

LasersHurt: 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.


Well that was a stupid deflection. Is that the limit of your intellect? I'm guessing you're a libtard.

The question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?
 
2013-08-30 10:36:52 AM
themarketingnutz.com

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-30 10:37:59 AM

The Numbers: Genuine question Lasers, how much notice are you expecting to be given about the action Obama takes? I mean, do you think he's going to announce beforehand when and where strikes would occur?


What strikes?

My point, because it seems you're confused here, is not "You can't be against getting involved militarily." It's "You can't judge Obama's Hypocritical invasion of Syria just like Iraq," because that isn't a thing that has happened or is happening. You can't even honestly judge his strikes, because we don't know if there will be some, what they'll be, etc. There is not enough information about the future for the level of reaction some posters have - that's the long and short of it.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:02 AM
So anyways, Obama is going to bomb some stuff in Syria.  He has no choice.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:08 AM

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


dasbut.com
 
2013-08-30 10:38:11 AM

somedude210: 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?


You're making all kinds of deranged assumptions here. What combination of forces in Congress has ANY interest in curtailing the US's ability to go kill whoever? Especially to the extent they would cast down a president over it.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:40 AM
Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

I want to see the kind of agents the U.S. Army can come up with in the 21st century.  We've probably got stuff that makes VX look like Obsession for Men.
 
2013-08-30 10:38:53 AM

vestona22: libtard


lol
 
2013-08-30 10:38:58 AM
To all of you who think we have a "moral obligation" to humanity.. where were you when millions were being slaughtered in Africa?  Didn't think so..   All of this is just more pandering to Israel. The problem is that this time they did a piss poor job of scheming up a boogieman to scare the Merkins™ into attacking one of their enemies.

/ Go find a large cactus and write "moral obligation to humanity"  on it, then fark yourself repeatedly with it in the stinky hole.
 
2013-08-30 10:39:36 AM
I'm all for not picking a winner  AND getting to bomb shiat.  I say we make a no fly zone, bomb anything on either side of this that is capable of deploying chemical weapons or targets the US forces.  Say "You can fight all you want, just not with the chemical weapons."  If they misbehave after that, just start dropping satellite pics of the country randomly.  This will give both sides equal intel on the other's forces.  They can then attack military, not civilian targets.  Win, win, really.
 
2013-08-30 10:39:54 AM
A few points:

A self-proclaimed red line is a foolish reason for war

There are no such things as Red Lines in sane foreign policy and Obama showed himself an amateur by allowing himself to be boxed in by proclaiming one.  What kind of fool enters into a war, killing people including innocent civilians and spending millions or billions of dollars we allegedly don't have, with no plan or strategy whatsoever, all because he's afraid of looking weak or fickle?  At some point you have to allow a little bruising to your pride rather than allowing emotions to goad you into pointless violence.

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Enforcing some sort of abstract "norm" against the use of chemical weapons is a joke.  Where was this principle when Iraq was gassing hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War?  Or when Israel used white phosphorus against Palestinians and Lebanese?  Americans used WF and depleted uranium munitions on Iraqis & Afghans?  It seems the real norm is "Don't use chemical weapons while being someone the US doesn't like."

Besides, why is killing people with chemical weapons worse than killing them with bullets, bombs, starvation, etc?  Is there a distinction there that's worth going to war over?

The intelligence on the alleged chemical attack is no "slam dunk."

A.) it has not been proven that there was a gas attack, B.) if there were an attack, it has not been proven who committed it, C.) if it had been committed by Syrian government forces, it has not been proven that it was ordered by the high command, and D.) even if it had been committed and ordered by Assad, how does a "limited strike" send more of a message than doing nothing at all?

Those acting like there's no doubt about a chemical attack seem to have forgotten the "slam dunk" intelligence claims about WMD in Iraq.  That was only 10 years ago!

The decision to go to war should not be just the president's to make

This is NOT a national emergency, and thus Obama should not be able to initiate war without congressional debate & approval.  How can we call ourselves a democracy, much less the foremost democracy in the world, when we allow one man to take us into a war of choice without any check?  Are we less a democracy than Britain, who did allow a debate?  Do we now elect an unaccountable king every 4 years?
 
2013-08-30 10:40:16 AM
Sure lets bomb the chemical stock piles we know about so the syrian troops guarding the ones we dont know about have an incentive to desert. You all relize that bombing makes it more likely that terrorists get chemical weapons, not less, right?
 
2013-08-30 10:41:24 AM

ArkPanda: Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

I want to see the kind of agents the U.S. Army can come up with in the 21st century.  We've probably got stuff that makes VX look like Obsession for Men.


We (the US) haven't manufactured chemical weapons in decades. That stuff is largely by, in and for tin-pot oppressive regimes and rogue states.
 
2013-08-30 10:42:56 AM

skozlaw: This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not.


Mikey1969: But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.


Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?
 
2013-08-30 10:44:28 AM
How long before Obama realized Putin has been playing him like a carp?
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b876a8bc035a
 
2013-08-30 10:45:14 AM

Nabb1: ArkPanda: Attention world:  Apparently, we don't give a shiat if you want to use chemical weapons.  Go ahead and gas whoever you want.

I want to see the kind of agents the U.S. Army can come up with in the 21st century.  We've probably got stuff that makes VX look like Obsession for Men.

We (the US) haven't manufactured chemical weapons in decades. That stuff is largely by, in and for tin-pot oppressive regimes and rogue states.


Right.  Because there are rules about that sort of thing.  Except now there aren't.
 
2013-08-30 10:45:17 AM

skozlaw: 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.


Nicely put. This debate has so far been a lot of heat and very little light. Nothing has even happened yet militarily, and people are already wailing about killing thousands of "brown people" and World War III. People are complaining that we're rushing into this, which may turn out to be true, but as of now, nothing has happened yet. Anybody claiming they know what is going on at this point is a liar. There is a lot of grey, complicated real estate between "do nothing" and "quagmire."
 
2013-08-30 10:45:32 AM

skozlaw: Ned Stark: What golden idols have I asserted to exist? I am not aware that I have erected any.

Unless you've personally become the "American conservative movement" I wasn't talking directly to you, now was I, Sparky? I know your scheme is to reflexively play that silly "both sides are bad" game, that's why I basically ignore you.


Its the "so vote x" part that's intellectually dishonset.

They really are all villains.
 
2013-08-30 10:45:53 AM

jack_o_the_hills: To all of you who think we have a "moral obligation" to humanity.. where were you when millions were being slaughtered in Africa?


We had this discussion yesterday evening. There is a fundamental difference in capability between stopping the use of chemical weapons and stopping warring tribes from going on a rape and pillage campaign through remote villages. One can be effectively accomplished from offshore with missiles, the other requires a massive detachment to actually meet the enemy head-on in the battlefield.

It is dishonest to compare Syria to things like Darfur. The two situations and the options surrounding them are completely unalike.
 
2013-08-30 10:45:56 AM

vestona22: The question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?


The question doesn't have anything near enough information to be answered. Does "unilaterally" mean without UN approval, or does Congress disapprove as well? What new information do we get about chemical weapons being used in Syria between now and when the attack commences? What is the scale and nature of our attack?

It's a complex situation. You will not be able to ask a simple question and get a simple answer.

Besides, I find your question faulty in its initial assumption. You assume that it was the initial involvement in Iraq that made Bush a war criminal. I disagree. It was torture. Without torture, Bush would have been a moron, an awful president, and a puppet for evil men, but not a war criminal.
 
2013-08-30 10:46:17 AM

jack_o_the_hills: To all of you who think we have a "moral obligation" to humanity.. where were you when millions were being slaughtered in Africa? Didn't think so.. All of this is just more pandering to Israel. The problem is that this time they did a piss poor job of scheming up a boogieman to scare the Merkins™ into attacking one of their enemies.


in 94? Yeah, I was 5 at the time. And I still think we should've done something, just as we should've done something after Saddam gassed the Kurds.

we're not an occupational force anymore (or at least shouldn't be), so we should at the very least enforce the laws the international community can't. This is a violation of law that has existed since before the UN.
 
2013-08-30 10:47:15 AM

thurstonxhowell: 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.

Bullshiat. You sound exactly like people saying we need to go war in Iraq because we need to do something. No, we don't. We have no moral obligation here. None.


Well, considering under the last administration we pissed all over the Geneva Convention and tortured willy nilly, you may have a point... But I'm not sure I like it.
 
2013-08-30 10:47:41 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


We've had this discussion as well. They received them from numerous sources, including Egypt and Iraq. Nobody has ever claimed Iraq never had WMDs, they had a very large cache of them in the 80s and they used them on several occasions. This has nothing to do with Iraq in 2003 which had none.

Any more inane questions?
 
2013-08-30 10:48:10 AM

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

[dasbut.com image 480x400]


Is that going to replace the snake flag?
 
2013-08-30 10:48:26 AM

qorkfiend: CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.

The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.


Still pretty weak sauce at this point.

skozlaw: One can be effectively accomplished from offshore with missiles


[Citation needed]
 
2013-08-30 10:48:38 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: skozlaw: This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not.

Mikey1969: But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.

Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


Derp.

Where do you get any evidence that these are GWB's missing WMDs from Iraq? So desperate to justify the invasion and embarassment for supporting Bush that you will look for anything to ease that burden?

It is possible to simply admit that you believed the lies at the time. It happens, it happened to a lot of people - including most of Congress and even the UN.
 
2013-08-30 10:49:51 AM
Military men saw their friends get torn apart by artillery. They saw 18 year-old boys gut-shot and crying out for their mothers. They heard scores of moans of pain in the darkness in no-man's land. They lived through trenchfoot, PTSD, thousands of men buried alive as a result of bombardments.

Then they saw gas, and were horrified. They said, "THAT has to be made illegal. There's a limit to our barbarity."

I haven't experienced it. But the guys who did insisted there's a difference. When soldiers who lived through some of the most barbarous wars in history say something is exceptionally so, I'm not inclined to disbelieve them. When farking HITLER felt, even against the Slavic hordes, slaves to Jewish Communism, advancing on an undeserving German people, that chemical weapons were too much of an abomination to consider using...

Yeah, I'm going to argue it's different.
 
2013-08-30 10:49:58 AM

The Muthaship: How's that "He knows what's best for us and will save us in spite of ourselves." sh*t treating you?


This is too much derp for a Friday. Have a good weekend, folks.
 
2013-08-30 10:51:08 AM

somedude210: 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 think those that aren't absolutely against bombing Syrian sites are going more "what the hell? this is *actually* a violation of international law and if we don't do something this will set up a terrible precedent for when other countries decide to use chemical weapons" I mean, hell, Obama was completely against doing anything in Syria until the chemical weapons attacks. Even the damn Congress was badgering him to get involved in Syria and he said no. Now we have a clear violation of international law and common humanity and everyone is suddenly silent?

You think we're damned if we get involved, what happens 10 years from now when we get attacked by pissed off Syrian survivors who begged for some help to stop the usage of chemical attacks and we did nothing?

Do they have to use nukes before we care? Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care? The US is the one in the position to prevent this because we're the only ones left. We wanted to be the last remaining superpower in the world so it's about time we start taking up the responsibility of the title


The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?
 
2013-08-30 10:51:21 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


l2.yimg.com
 
2013-08-30 10:51:53 AM
He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?
 
2013-08-30 10:52:21 AM

qorkfiend: The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah


If we want to prevent the former, we should be supporting Assad.
AQ hates the Shia heretics more than it hates the US. infidel.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:01 AM

CheatCommando: qorkfiend: CheatCommando: I do not see a case for a compelling national interest in Syria at this time.

The best one I've heard is that we don't want Al Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on the Syrian Army's stockpiles of nerve gas.

Still pretty weak sauce at this point.


How do you figure? Admittedly it's a more immediate interest for our allies (Israel, Europe) who are geographically closer to Syria than the United States, but I think preventing Al Qaeda from acquiring a large stockpile of nerve gas - especially with a large number of US troops not too far away in Iraq - might qualify.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:01 AM

Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?


I thought the death count from last week upped to 1300?
 
2013-08-30 10:53:10 AM

Ned Stark: Its the "so vote x" part that's intellectually dishonset.


I didn't say your opinions were intellectually dishonest.

To the contrary, my problem with you is that your opinions seem to lack any intellect at all. You just lash out mindlessly at everyone on every side of you without ever displaying any evidence that you've put any effort into understanding any of their opinions or motivations and without acknowledging that you're living in a world with a huge number of competing ideas and opinions that need to be weighed on their individual merits and viewed as a wide spectrum of possibilities that are rarely inherently simply right or wrong.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:27 AM

Geotpf: The issue I have is why is killing 300 people with chemical weapons so much worse than killing 100,000 people with bombs and missiles and bullets?


Missiles and bullets are generally targeted at enemy combatants. They can kill innocents, of course, but usually they do not.

Gas makes no distinctions. It's an uncontrollable weapon.

This could be why, or at least part.
 
2013-08-30 10:53:43 AM

He_Hate_Me: Americans used WP and depleted uranium munitions on Iraqis & Afghans?  It seems the real norm is "Don't use chemical weapons while being someone the US doesn't like."


WP and DU are not even remotely the same as nerve agents.
 
2013-08-30 10:54:08 AM

give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?


Tear gas is a chemical weapon...
 
2013-08-30 10:54:41 AM

LasersHurt: vestona22: libtard

lol


And the question still stands, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?
 
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: skozlaw: This is nothing like Iraq. We know Assad has these weapons, whether they've been used or not.

Mikey1969: But at least he didn't have to lie about non-existent WMD, there's always that.

Where do y'all think Syria got their WMDs?


Oh yeah, this one's been bouncing around lately... Back when they were supposed to have been shipping tons and tons of the stuff out of Iraq, quite a few people pointed out just how much of a convoy would be required to ship that much shiat. Kinda hard to hide, but sure, whatever...
 
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM
What moral obligation to we have to stop the systematic rape and murder in West Africa? What moral obligation do we have to stop people from enslaving children and turning them into soldiers? What moral obligation to we have to stop the genocide and starvation?

Oh right. Israel doesn't care about West Africa, so fark em.
 
2013-08-30 10:55:46 AM

DRFS Rich: thurstonxhowell: 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.

Bullshiat. You sound exactly like people saying we need to go war in Iraq because we need to do something. No, we don't. We have no moral obligation here. None.

Well, considering under the last administration we pissed all over the Geneva Convention and tortured willy nilly, you may have a point... But I'm not sure I like it.


The term "sending a message" is the part that gets me (in both directions, action or not) Does anyone think Assad gives a crap about the message? He has stated that Syria will NOT be controlled by other countries.
 
2013-08-30 10:55:50 AM

He_Hate_Me: Are we less a democracy than Britain, who did allow a debate?  Do we now elect an unaccountable king every 4 years?


Congress does not need to go groveling to the emperor to please call them into session. That's just ceding more power to the imperial presidency. Congress may call itself into session on its own authority. Those farking cowards just don't want to assert themselves.
 
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