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 11:35:47 AM

Marine1: Well... at least we have the French... which honestly surprises me. Open cheese sack, remove testicles.

Hollande still up for strike
Let the UN conduct its investigation. If there's evidence that they find that Assad used the weapons... well... his regime must be punished. Until then, let's whip out just enough rhetorical dick to make sure that punishing the regime is still an option if the time comes.


This.
 
2013-08-30 11:36:20 AM

LasersHurt: The Numbers: But my question to you is whether you genuinely believe said specifics are going to provided so as to allow for such a debate.

You're arguing something unrelated to my earlier posts, to which you were responding.


From your earlier posts:

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

LasersHurt: ...a lot of people making assumptions about what he'll do that do not align with any actual words he's said.

LasersHurt:You can't even honestly judge his strikes, because we don't know if there will be some, what they'll be, etc.

LasersHurt: There is not enough information about the future for the level of reaction some posters have - that's the long and short of it.

Now perhaps I'm misreading it, but the point you seem to be pushing here is that there isn't any specific information on what action will, or won't, be taken and that in the absence of that information, people should calm down and not get hung up on hypotheticals. Fair assessment?

What I've been trying to ascertain from you is whether you think Obama will be providing such specific information on what action he plans to take (assuming he decides to take it) and when you think that might occur.

You see, the administration has been careful to note that Obama hasn't made his final decision yet. Now, that might well be an honest statement that he hasn't made his final decision yet (arguments over whether it should really be his decision to make are a separate matter). Alternatively however, it could be a stalling tactic because he has made his decision, but doesn't want to announce it until after the action has been taken because giving opponents the opportunity to voice their concerns about actual specifics rather than more easily dismissed hypotheticals could get politically awkward.
 
2013-08-30 11:36:22 AM
vygramul:

Was his codename "Curveball"?

No, Hardhat.
 
2013-08-30 11:36:41 AM

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You believe everything you read on WND don't you?

I don't read anything on there. I do read fark threads about stories from there, tho.


s2s2s2s2: even more uninformed than we thought.TM
 
2013-08-30 11:37:50 AM

what_now: 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.


You need the combo.  Humanitarian, in national interests and feasible.
 
2013-08-30 11:40:04 AM

The Numbers: Now perhaps I'm misreading it, but the point you seem to be pushing here is that there isn't any specific information on what action will, or won't, be taken and that in the absence of that information, people should calm down and not get hung up on hypotheticals. Fair assessment?

What I've been trying to ascertain from you is whether you think Obama will be providing such specific information on what action he plans to take (assuming he decides to take it) and when you think that might occur.


The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.

Again, the difference is "Arguing against courses of action" vs "arguing against Obama." You can say "I don't support invading Syria," but not "I can't believe Obama is invading Syria."
 
2013-08-30 11:40:51 AM
I do feel that we either need to get Congressional approval for any military action, or go in as part of a UN coalition.

Sadly I suspect that the former would only happen if they attached a rider to defund Obamacare.
 
2013-08-30 11:41:14 AM

vygramul: 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.

This is really the big problem: we've spent so much time doing stuff we shouldn't have (such as invading Iraq) that when one of the few instances I think we should feel COMPELLED to act finally comes up, everyone is too sick and tired of it to do it.


Bingo. Pretty surprised  Weaver95 of all people isn't behind at least taking action to remove chemical weapons from the equation (agreed all around that we can't "fix" this situation ourselves, though I'd say we can try to limit some of the damage).
 
2013-08-30 11:42:46 AM

Wyalt Derp: I do feel that we either need to get Congressional approval for any military action, or go in as part of a UN coalition.

Sadly I suspect that the former would only happen if they attached a rider to defund Obamacare.


I imagine the line would be that we've already got Congressional approval from the 9/11 AUMF, due to the involvement of Al Qaeda on the side of the rebels...
 
2013-08-30 11:44:11 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.


When did we ever give a damn about anyone but us? far as i remember, it was about protecting our interests overseas, not that we gave a flying fark about anyone there. spare us your preaching of false moralistic bullshiat.
 
2013-08-30 11:50:30 AM
This isn't going to work.
 
2013-08-30 11:50:30 AM

ikanreed: s2s2s2: ikanreed: And jesus christ s2s2s2, we knew way-the-hell back in the early 2000s that Syria was making their own chemical weapons.  This is such a stupid line of reasoning, you should feel stupid for presenting it.

If you say so, random person on the Internet.

Or, you could do basic research on the subject.  Google news archives.  Wikipedia article about Syria and chemical weapons.  You know a basic self priming on the history of something before forming an opinion about it.


I think you're giving him too much credit. We're just proud of him forming mostly complete sentences now.
 
2013-08-30 11:50:40 AM

LasersHurt: The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.


But you do believe that, if Obama decides to take action, specific information on what form that action would take will be released before it happens? And sufficiently in advance to allow for any opposition to that action to be appropriately expressed?
 
2013-08-30 11:54:56 AM
Now it won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old smart enough to understand:
Son Obama, you don't have to fight to be a man.
 
2013-08-30 11:57:54 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


What happens in *2 MONTHS* when the international community turns a blind eye and Syria gasses half a city to extricate dug in rebels and kills 10,000 civilians?
 
2013-08-30 11:59:09 AM
Treaties and Conventions aside, do we really have any sort of obligation (moral or otherwise) to intervene in an internal dispute?

There have been civil wars of all sorts on a number of continents all through the past century, and we got involved in a major way in two. Neither of those turned out too well for us. So what point is there in getting involved in this one? Yes, I know the same could be said for Libya, and I wasn't too keen on NATO getting involved.

So, why should we get involved? Should we just kick back and do nothing? Should we only do something if the conflict starts to cross into another country (e.g. Jordan or Israel) and they ask us to do something?
 
2013-08-30 12:00:12 PM

vygramul: So now Obama is being too much of a leader?



Leaders persuade, motivate and inspire others to follow.

They also refrain from blaming subordinates when they (a) refuse to follow or (b) follow but the results don't turn out quite right.

A guy who insists on making everyone do what they don't want to do, and then whining about it, is just an asshole.
 
2013-08-30 12:02:14 PM

The Numbers: LasersHurt: The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.

But you do believe that, if Obama decides to take action, specific information on what form that action would take will be released before it happens? And sufficiently in advance to allow for any opposition to that action to be appropriately expressed?


What point is it that you are trying to make here? I feel like you think you're cleverly working around to breaking an argument that nobody's actually making.
 
2013-08-30 12:12:41 PM

LargeCanine: This isn't going to work.


Thank you for your very well-reasoned and explained post showcasing the entirety of your argument Mr. totally not an alt for  Canis.Noir etc.
 
2013-08-30 12:13:14 PM

mrshowrules: When Obama drew his red lines, were there any Republicans complaining about the possible military action it reflected?

If you didn't complain that the red line was too harsh, you can't complain about the military action Obama is probably going to end up taking.  Unless you position is that Syrian government didn't in fact cross the red line.


There are two camps in the Republican party.  There's the "bomb everything" camp, headed by John McCain.  Then there's the "libertarian-lite" camp, headed by the Paul family.  The first group has been consistantly in favor of military action and the second group has been consistantly against it.  While this split makes it seems like Republicans are complaining about whatever Obama is doing (like they do on domestic issues), in this case it's just different Republicans complaining at different times.
 
2013-08-30 12:14:42 PM

ikanreed: netweavr: give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.

durr: "Police and private self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.  "


That doesn't mean Tear Gas is not a Chemical Weapons. It just means it's not illegal to use against your own people.

give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: netweavr: give me doughnuts: He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?

Tear gas is a chemical weapon...


Not according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The treaty I linked to doesn't consider "riot control" agents like tear gas to be a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention#Chemical_we ap ons lists tear gas as a chemical weapon.

From Article 2 of this treaty:


9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.


That doesn't mean Tear Gas is not a Chemical Weapons. It just means it's not illegal to use against your own people.
 
2013-08-30 12:16:56 PM
I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.
 
2013-08-30 12:20:24 PM
Been discussing this with a Chinese associate of mine I do business with (in China) and they told me that the Chinese people don't even believe there are chemical weapons being used
 
2013-08-30 12:21:01 PM

StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.


This
 
2013-08-30 12:29:46 PM

LasersHurt: The Numbers: LasersHurt: The first part is fair, but I have no idea why you think I have anything to say on the second. The idea that I cannot properly prognosticate a timeframe does not affect how proper it is to judge Obama NOW for things that have not yet been done.

But you do believe that, if Obama decides to take action, specific information on what form that action would take will be released before it happens? And sufficiently in advance to allow for any opposition to that action to be appropriately expressed?

What point is it that you are trying to make here? I feel like you think you're cleverly working around to breaking an argument that nobody's actually making.


Well right now I'm mostly being amused by your evasiveness. I mean, you really do not want to state your expectations of the Obama administration on this, I'm guessing because you're worried there's a realistic probability they'd fall short.

As to the actual point of my posts, as I've outlined above: while you might be justified in stating there isn't specific information currently available on what actions might be taken, it should also be acknowledged that it is far from certain that such information will be provided in such a manner as to allow for proper debate and dissent.
 
2013-08-30 12:32:09 PM

Publikwerks: StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.

This



Then you should get off your ass, put down the doughnuts, pick up a gun, and go stop it.

Or are you all talk?
 
2013-08-30 12:32:46 PM

The Numbers: Well right now I'm mostly being amused by your evasiveness. I mean, you really do not want to state your expectations of the Obama administration on this, I'm guessing because you're worried there's a realistic probability they'd fall short.


I'm evading you because you latched on to something I said and have ignored its meaning, instead asking me to answer some question you're really invested in. I'm trying to find out why.

The Numbers: As to the actual point of my posts, as I've outlined above: while you might be justified in stating there isn't specific information currently available on what actions might be taken, it should also be acknowledged that it is far from certain that such information will be provided in such a manner as to allow for proper debate and dissent.


Which DOES NOT AFFECT what I had posted, at all.
 
2013-08-30 12:32:47 PM
 In all fairness some of the people against it are only against it because Obama is the one doing it. As soon as a republican gets in office they'll be spewing the same jive they did under Bush.
 
2013-08-30 12:36:23 PM

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.


Stop being the Weenerser on your submissions. Makes you look desperate.
 
2013-08-30 12:37:26 PM

Geotpf: mrshowrules: When Obama drew his red lines, were there any Republicans complaining about the possible military action it reflected?

If you didn't complain that the red line was too harsh, you can't complain about the military action Obama is probably going to end up taking.  Unless you position is that Syrian government didn't in fact cross the red line.

There are two camps in the Republican party.  There's the "bomb everything" camp, headed by John McCain.  Then there's the "libertarian-lite" camp, headed by the Paul family.  The first group has been consistantly in favor of military action and the second group has been consistantly against it.  While this split makes it seems like Republicans are complaining about whatever Obama is doing (like they do on domestic issues), in this case it's just different Republicans complaining at different times.


Good point but did the fake Libertarian camp admonish Obama's threat/red line at the time for being to harsh?
 
2013-08-30 12:39:13 PM

Phinn: Publikwerks: StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.

This

Then you should get off your ass, put down the doughnuts, pick up a gun, and go stop it.

Or are you all talk?


Funny how many people who had a completely different attitude starting March 20, 2003 now have no compunctions making statements like this. Maybe it represents personal growth, maybe it is something else. Of course, there's no way for me to tell.

I know you weren't posting on Fark.com in 2003, so I guess this isn't a direct dig against you. I will say, though, that many of the people decrying taking action against Syria have been in threads complaining that Iran hasn't been bombed yet.
 
2013-08-30 12:42:11 PM

HypnozombieX: In all fairness some of the people against it are only against it because Obama is the one doing it. As soon as a republican gets in office they'll be spewing the same jive they did under Bush.


We get it, you think everyone who disagrees with Obama getting us into another war is a racist.
 
2013-08-30 12:42:48 PM

Phinn: Publikwerks: StopLurkListen: I don't care if the rest of the world is opposed. When crimes against humanity are happening, and we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings to stop it.

This

Then you should get off your ass, put down the doughnuts, pick up a gun, and go stop it.

Or are you all talk?


That doesn't make you sound defensive or hypocritical at all. Not one bit.
 
2013-08-30 12:44:13 PM

Weaver95: Nobody wants us to bomb Syria...nobody will help us bomb Syria....


You know that's factually incorrect.¨

I wouldn't be surprised if France let the way on this infact, just as they did in Libya.

That would make Obama look like a clown though.
 
2013-08-30 12:48:15 PM

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?


2008?
 
2013-08-30 12:49:53 PM

spawn73: I wouldn't be surprised if France let the way on this infact, just as they did in Libya.

That would make Obama look like a clown though.


if France led the way? I think that would probably be the best outcome for Obama is to have the US run logistical support again but France take the brunt of the bombing runs, we'll supply them
 
2013-08-30 12:52:48 PM

somedude210: Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care?


How  many collateral damage people should we kill to show our disdain for killing the innocent?
 
2013-08-30 12:54:50 PM

LasersHurt: The Numbers: Well right now I'm mostly being amused by your evasiveness. I mean, you really do not want to state your expectations of the Obama administration on this, I'm guessing because you're worried there's a realistic probability they'd fall short.

I'm evading you because you latched on to something I said and have ignored its meaning, instead asking me to answer some question you're really invested in. I'm trying to find out why.


Your earlier posts seemed to chastise people for reacting to their own hypothetical scenarios in the absence of specifics from the administration. Now, to my mind a logical inference from that position is that you think there will come a time when people are provided with those specifics, at which juncture informed debate on the merits of such actions can take place. I mean, it would seem rather disingenuous to criticise people for reacting on the basis of little information if that was all the information you thought they were ever going to get.

What's been really curious though, and I suppose it's why I've 'latched onto' the point as you put it, is the way you've twisted and turned to avoid answering any question that might confirm whether my inference wass correct. I mean, I don't think it's really that tricky a question:

Do you think that the Obama administration will, if they decide to take military action in Syria, release specific details of such actions in a manner that allows the relative merits to be debated and dissenting voices considered?
 
2013-08-30 12:55:31 PM

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.


You want to send a message?  Pick up the phone.  Bombing is to kill people.
 
2013-08-30 12:56:35 PM
Mean while in america.. gas prices on the rise just in time for labor day weekend holiday.
 
2013-08-30 12:58:04 PM

Nabb1: The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.

Coalition of the Willing 2, WMD Boogaloo.


"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again. "
 
2013-08-30 01:01:03 PM

Sliding Carp: somedude210: Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care?

How  many collateral damage people should we kill to show our disdain for killing the innocent?


Ask the Syrian people targeted by Assad's regime.  I think you would surprised home much death they would tolerate to fark up Assad's military just a little.
 
2013-08-30 01:02:12 PM

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


Unacceptability
 
2013-08-30 01:08:43 PM

The Numbers: Your earlier posts seemed to chastise people for reacting to their own hypothetical scenarios in the absence of specifics from the administration.


My posts chastised people for reacting to their own hypotheticals and blaming Obama as if he were doing them. I have explained this several times.

The Numbers: Now, to my mind a logical inference from that position is that you think there will come a time when people are provided with those specifics, at which juncture informed debate on the merits of such actions can take place.


This time will be when he says what he wants to do, or does it, depending on how he approaches it.

The Numbers: What's been really curious though, and I suppose it's why I've 'latched onto' the point as you put it, is the way you've twisted and turned to avoid answering any question that might confirm whether my inference wass correct.


Your "inference" was incorrect, which is why I have not answered your questions - they hang on the validity of that inference.
 
2013-08-30 01:12:52 PM
Barry, Barry, Barry.

You've got a wife who goes from semi-hot to hot. She doesn't even sound all that biatchy (at least not in public). Just go bang her for a while, and you'll stop feeling this silly need to bomb various countries.
 
2013-08-30 01:13:14 PM

thurstonxhowell: vestona22: My question has nothing to do with Bush.

Your original question featured you stumbling all over yourself to use the idiotic term "libtards" in order to accuse people of hypocrisy. Don't bullshiat me. We're on the internet and I can still see what you said.

vestona22: International law doesn't care what Congress has to say. The UN has not approved any attack. So, will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?

Y'know what, fine, since you keep demanding a simple answer to a simple question about a complex situation, no matter how stupid that idea is. I'll give you one.

International law doesn't say that waging war without UN approval is a war crime. It's a violation of the UN charter and may be considered illegal, but it is not a war crime. It wasn't when Bush did it and it wouldn't be if Obama did it. Which doesn't make it right or legal.


My comments about libtard hypocrisy were contextual. The question about the legality of unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations stands on its own. And your comment about "It wasn't when Bush did it" demonstrations your ignorance, as he had a UN resolution authorizing his actions. Obama does not. In fact the UN has been quite clear that they do not support unilateral military action against Syria.

And, yes, international law does say unprovoked attacks against sovereign nations is a war crime. In fact that was one of the charges against the surviving Nazis at Nuremberg. It was called "conspiracy to commit aggression".

So not only are you wrong, but the question still stands. "Will unilaterally attacking a nation without being attacked make Obama a war criminal?"
 
2013-08-30 01:15:23 PM
Good going GOP.  By chasing the boondoggle in Iraq you have hamstrung the US's ability to intervene when it probably should.  Is there anything you idiots can't totally fark up?
 
2013-08-30 01:15:26 PM

skozlaw: 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.


So "morality" is determined in part by the convenience of adhering to it?
 
2013-08-30 01:16:43 PM
F*ck 'em all. Let the rest of the people in the world slaughter each other. They don't need our help to do it.
 
2013-08-30 01:18:28 PM
Only Obama could unite right wing derpers with left wing derpers
 
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