Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, Michigan Republicans, Russia, Democrats, Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, United Nations Security Council  
•       •       •

4322 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:40 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-08-30 01:19:44 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.


Are you okay with N. Korea having Nukes? Cause we sent them a message a few months ago when they did their tests.
 
2013-08-30 01:21:33 PM  

iaazathot: 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?


We shouldn't intervene... yet. It pains me to say this but the Chinese and Russians aren't wrong in believing that rebels could have used the gas. Various Islamic terrorist groups are fighting in the area to depose the Assad regime so that a more fundamentalist Islamic government can be set up in Syria when the bastard finally falls. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they would plan to use such weapons if they were available. I don't think it's as likely as Assad using them (not by a long shot), but until we (and others) can prove that Assad did it, we'd be really pressing our luck with Russia and Iran by striking now.

The administration and our ally (France) need to wait until the UN is done with its work. After that, the Russians and Chinese will have a PR crisis if they rebuke our request to punish Assad for his weapons use. We're playing the rhetoric wayyyyy too loud right now for what we have to work with.
 
2013-08-30 01:22:05 PM  

Surool: 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.


tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-30 01:23:48 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.


The bombings will continue until morale improves!
 
2013-08-30 01:24:05 PM  

Crewmannumber6: Time for some tough love. Ready? Here goes:
[i714.photobucket.com image 760x535]
You guys suck at nation building.


Pshaw.  What's to build?  Its got borders already.  And nice population.  Throw up some wallpaper, kick in a couple of written down rules, this place will be good as new in no time.
 
2013-08-30 01:26:32 PM  

somedude210: 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


France took apart Cote D'Ivore and Mali all on their own.

I didn't see anti-war American libs attack the French over those actions either.
 
2013-08-30 01:28:09 PM  

somedude210: vygramul: 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.

didn't you get the memo? This is Iraq war x10. Troops everywhere, invasions and bombings, we're going to be there for 1000 years because fark it, people are dying.


Chuck Norris was right!
 
2013-08-30 01:28:12 PM  

dr_blasto: 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.

I would suggest looking up some of the history between Iraq, Iran and Syria. Look to how Saddam Hussein came to power.

there's a reason he could sneak off to either country and ended up in a spider hole.


He was hired by Eisenhower to do a hit. He failed and was used by succeeding administrations, which strengthened his position in the regi.....
 
2013-08-30 01:28:15 PM  

skozlaw: 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.


farking this! We can't just ignore this, the violence could spread and further destabilize the region. If they're using these weapons against their own people, what's to stop them from using them against other nations? How bad does it have to get before someone steps in and helps these people? Or are we ok with it because its half the world away?

This isn't farking Iraq, and I know it's not Libya either, but I just don't think sitting by and doing nothing and hoping for the best is the right thing to do.

/before I get a lot of "We'll, there's the recruiters office, go sign up!", I've actually been considering enlisting in the Navy as a medic since before this shiat started hitting the fan.
//maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal, but whatever, these people need help and right now we're the only ones in a position to do anything about it.
 
2013-08-30 01:28:38 PM  
Let's talk logistics:

Anyone have any idea of what exactly we would throw at Syria?

I imagine we'll launch some cruise missles, but at what targets?  Munition dumps or factories?

Would we bother sending in planes to drop bombs?  What would they be targeting themselves?

A ground invasion is right out.

Do we even know where there may be other chemical weapons stored?  It would make sense that if we were going to launch an attack for the purposes of stopping chemical weapons attacks we shouldn't just randomly blow stuff up.

My guess is this is all pomp and circumstance.  Obama will sit there and wag his junk and let Syria know that even without international support, he still has the ability to bring a world of pain.  Maybe it might even bring someone to the table to have some serious talks, who knows.  This is brinkmanship at it's best, and I think Obama is doing the right thing, so far.  It can definitely go off the rails pretty damn easily.

/Russia has to get their two cents in for EVERY scuffle, they're the Rob Schneider of the Adam Sandler movie that is the world.  The best thing to do is just let them have their screen time and move on.
 
2013-08-30 01:28:42 PM  
My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.
 
2013-08-30 01:29:10 PM  

Marine1: iaazathot: 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?

We shouldn't intervene... yet. It pains me to say this but the Chinese and Russians aren't wrong in believing that rebels could have used the gas. Various Islamic terrorist groups are fighting in the area to depose the Assad regime so that a more fundamentalist Islamic government can be set up in Syria when the bastard finally falls. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they would plan to use such weapons if they were available. I don't think it's as likely as Assad using them (not by a long shot), but until we (and others) can prove that Assad did it, we'd be really pressing our luck with Russia and Iran by striking now.

The administration and our ally (France) need to wait until the UN is done with its work. After that, the Russians and Chinese will have a PR crisis if they rebuke our request to punish Assad for his weapons use. We're playing the rhetoric wayyyyy too loud right now for what we have to work with.


I don't disagree with that assessment, but you have to admit the rest of the world is more than gun shy about following us in should we act.  The vote in the UK had nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with getting burned on Iraq.
 
2013-08-30 01:30:07 PM  

ikanreed: 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


You consider not reading WND evidence of being uninformed? Interesting.
 
2013-08-30 01:31:29 PM  

s2s2s2: ikanreed: 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

You consider not reading WND evidence of being uninformed? Interesting.


It was a joke at your expense, caused primarily by how exhausting it is dealing with you.
 
2013-08-30 01:33:10 PM  

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.


That's funny, the same people who pushed for us to go into Iraq as long as they didnt have to do any of the actual fighting are turning around and calling people like us chickenhawks for wanting to take action against a regime who actually has chemical weapons and is willing to use them on their own people.

Cue the Farnsworth I don't want to live on this planet any more.jpg

/Hey NASA, can I join that team to Mars?
 
2013-08-30 01:35:14 PM  

the biggest redneck here: My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.


www.hireanillustrator.com
 
2013-08-30 01:36:24 PM  

mrshowrules: Surool: 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.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]


We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?
 
2013-08-30 01:36:41 PM  

LasersHurt: 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.


Ok, now you're all over the map. I ask you this 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?'

and you're refusing to answer it on the grounds that you think it is incorrect to infer from your criticism of people not waiting for specifics from Obama that you think specifics will be forthcoming?

Again, I'd have to say I think it's looking more and more like you're refusing to give even a simple yes / no answer because you're worried if you make a definite statement about your expectations for the Obama administration it opens up the potential for embarrassment should they come up short. What if I were to promise not to mention your answer in future threads?
 
2013-08-30 01:40:26 PM  

Shadow Blasko: There is your red line. Right there.

*I* would be more than willing to drag my fat ass over there if they asked.

You can't just DO that. Those are kids .. not combatants



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/darfur-in-2013-soun ds -awfully-familiar.html

What about this red line, that we've been ignoring for a decade?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-20/opinions/35230635_1_ge no cide-holodomor-famine

Where's the red line here?

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

Any red lines crossed there?

http://www.voanews.com/content/somalia-rape-30aug13/1740074.html

Napalm is certainly bad, but how do you feel about government agents just runnin' around raping and killing whoever they feel like? Is that a red line?

 What justifies action against Syria while ignoring atrocities elsewhere? The world is a terrible place. We don't have the blood and treasure necessary to fix *all* the problems. Why is Syria so high on the priority list that we seem to be willing to act unilaterally if nobody else will join us? Is it particularly far-fetched to suggest that maybe the driving motivation isn't that we just care so much about the lives of civilians?
 
2013-08-30 01:43:38 PM  

vestona22: 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?"


Funny you should bring up Nuremberg. You should probably look up the Nuremberg Principles like I did before I wrote the post you just replied to. Waging a war of aggression is classed as a "crime against peace". A "crime against peace" is related to, but separate from, a "war crime".

I'll say again, military action in Syria may be illegal, but it is not a war crime all by itself. Same deal as military action in Iraq.

As for your crap about Iraq and UN authorization, Kofi Annan disagrees - "From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal." Illegal. Not a war crime. There's a difference.
 
2013-08-30 01:44:06 PM  

Surool: mrshowrules: Surool: 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.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]

We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?


Listen to Spidey up thread.
 
2013-08-30 01:46:24 PM  
I think the US and France should go ahead and strike Syria for the chemical attacks.  What  somedude210 said, we have to make countries understand that there will be consequences to the use of prohibited weapons and violations of international law, such as this situation.   I hate getting our country involved in more conflicts (2 for the last 13 years was more than enough) but a limited strike to punish Assad is the only thing we can do.  He knows he's wrong and he's basically getting the Chinese and Russians to sign off on his bad acts.

And even though we let a few atrocities go by, doesn't necessarily mean we should throw our hands up and let them all go.  That would be criminal.
 
2013-08-30 01:48:50 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.


Only a full scale invasion and occupation of Syria so that the weapons in question can be located, seized and destroyed safely will stop it. You just can't drop bombs on chemical weapons depots to destroy them. Is an invasion what you really want?
 
2013-08-30 01:50:24 PM  

somedude210: good news dictators around the world, you're free to use whatever means you want to use to keep your populace oppressed, no one's gonna give a flying fark about it so you won't have to worry about retaliation.


Dictators around the world have already figured this out. It's not news. They all know that as long as they don't step on our toes they can rape and pillage to their hearts' content. Which toe is Syria stepping on? It's not the "We hate seeing civilians die in horrible ways" toe, because we're letting that carry on uninterrupted in several places around the world. If we should suddenly decide that as the only superpower, we have a real responsibility to play world police, we should not model ourselves after a corrupt, self-interested small town PD.
 
2013-08-30 01:52:54 PM  
 
2013-08-30 01:59:28 PM  
The evil genius empty suit makes America look weak by showing aggression.
 
2013-08-30 02:06:20 PM  

mrshowrules: the biggest redneck here: My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.

[www.hireanillustrator.com image 600x776]


SEALs can swim though.
 
2013-08-30 02:06:50 PM  

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: God help us if this is true


He's no Colin Powell.
 
2013-08-30 02:08:55 PM  

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


You're not really leading anyone if NO ONE is behind you.
 
2013-08-30 02:16:03 PM  
Wouldn't a nerve gas manufacturing facility have to be manually infiltrated and over-taken?    Seems like just dropping a bomb on a nerve gas facility kinda defeats the purpose of trying to contain it.
 
2013-08-30 02:16:13 PM  
at this point obama is functionally indistinguishable from a hard core neocon.

because he is such an incredible politician, a reasonable person even has to wonder whether his original objection to the second iraq war was actually heartfelt instead of simply a political calculation designed to immediately separate himself from 80% of the democratic establishment in the eyes of the liberal wing of the democratic party.
 
2013-08-30 02:24:48 PM  
I have a question for those saying "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING"

When do you plan on contacting a recruiter at your local military branch and beginning the process of enrollment? And I don't care if your grandfather stormed a beach or if you sat in 2 years of Puerto Rico surveillance when you were 24...


I want to know when you personally plan to go and enlist. And if you have children of age, do you plan on letting them enlist on their own or will you be bringing them along?


Just curious.


memedepot.com
 
2013-08-30 02:25:41 PM  

mrshowrules: the biggest redneck here: My in-laws live on a tiny isolated island in VA where SEALS run drills sometimes. They've been going non-stop for a couple weeks now, including daytime practices. Take that for whatever it's worth.


Right. Big secret there.
 
2013-08-30 02:28:50 PM  

Mi-5: I think the US and France should go ahead and strike Syria for the chemical attacks.  What  somedude210 said, we have to make countries understand that there will be consequences to the use of prohibited weapons and violations of international law, such as this situation.   I hate getting our country involved in more conflicts (2 for the last 13 years was more than enough) but a limited strike to punish Assad is the only thing we can do.  He knows he's wrong and he's basically getting the Chinese and Russians to sign off on his bad acts.

And even though we let a few atrocities go by, doesn't necessarily mean we should throw our hands up and let them all go.  That would be criminal.


we violate international law all the time. all the time.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/16/undr-m16.html
is what is good for the geese good for the gander?

this attack itself appears to be a violation of international law:

the use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):
    All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[1]
Although some commentators interpret Article 2(4) as banning only the use of force directed at the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, the more widely held opinion is that these are merely intensifiers, and that the article constitutes a general prohibition, subject only to the exceptions stated in the Charter (self-defence and Chapter VII action by the Security Council)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states


/if this is doing justice, then it brings to mind "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger"
 
2013-08-30 02:29:37 PM  

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



I don't think we have to worry about that.
 
2013-08-30 02:30:05 PM  
There is undoubtedly a large body of psychological studies done by the Kremlin as to the feasibility of exploiting disaffected alternate sexual lifestyle adherents. There was a time, way back when, when gays and other alt folks could not get a clearance if their proclivities were known or admitted. I think it's very likely that highly idealistic nonconforming individuals can have their egos played upon by presenting them with something like Wikileaks, which gives them the opportunity to seize their version of the higher moral ground. Certain personality types are absolutely attracted to sticking it to The Man, whomever that man might be, gay or not. Many of these folks consider themselves smarter than the status quo and they move in their own moral universe. See also: Assange, Snowden, Manning, Greenwald, et al. All of these men are sexually libertine, highly intelligent, disaffected.

I think these idiots all got played by the Russians.
Putin's fark you to Obama.
 
2013-08-30 02:30:18 PM  

relcec: at this point obama is functionally indistinguishable from a hard core neocon.

because he is such an incredible politician, a reasonable person even has to wonder whether his original objection to the second iraq war was actually heartfelt instead of simply a political calculation designed to immediately separate himself from 80% of the democratic establishment in the eyes of the liberal wing of the democratic party.


Welcome to reality.

I can't promise that you'll like your newfound awareness. People who are still stuck in their media bubble will attack you and try to undermine you and resent you. You'll try to help them and most of them will hate you for it.

In all honesty, it sucks most of the time, but you can't go back, so you might as well learn to cope with it.
 
2013-08-30 02:32:31 PM  

s2s2s2: dr_blasto: 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.

I would suggest looking up some of the history between Iraq, Iran and Syria. Look to how Saddam Hussein came to power.

there's a reason he could sneak off to either country and ended up in a spider hole.

He was hired by Eisenhower to do a hit. He failed and was used by succeeding administrations, which strengthened his position in the regi.....


Ok. Troll mode. Got it.
 
2013-08-30 02:34:27 PM  
The United States of Heroes used WHITE PHOSPHORUS in Iraq.
Where's the indignation?
 
2013-08-30 02:42:10 PM  
This has been a boon for those of us who listen to talk radio.  You have guys like Rush, that within 30 seconds of themselves will say both that Obama is too much of a pansy to do anything about Syria crossing the "red line" and he makes America look weak, followed by saying Obama is an evil monster for wanting to lob a few missiles at Syria when the rest of the world doesn't want him to.

I also enjoy all the people who think launching a few missiles at Syria is the equivalent of the Iraq war and that makes Obama just as bad as Bush.
 
2013-08-30 02:46:34 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The United States of Heroes used WHITE PHOSPHORUS in Iraq.
Where's the indignation?

from wiki:

According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties
 
2013-08-30 02:46:41 PM  

logistic: I have a question for those saying "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING"



Hopefully the chickenhawk with his finger on the button has got all your answers.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com

/His opinion still seems to matter even tho he wasn't at the battle of the bulge.
 
2013-08-30 02:47:57 PM  
Kerry insisted Friday that the situation differs from Iraq, saying the intelligence community "reviewed and re-reviewed" its information "more than mindful of the Iraq experience." And he added: "We will not repeat that moment."

He cited particular evidence that shows al-Assad's regime was responsible.

"We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations," Kerry said. "And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons."

In addition, "we know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time," he said. "We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods."


Looks like we're attacking.  Put your boots on.
 
2013-08-30 02:48:00 PM  
The great uniter has united everyone against us taking action in Syria.  His incomprehensible foreign "policy" looks like he uses the magic 8-ball to make decisions.
 
2013-08-30 02:49:10 PM  
Both sides hate the USA, and the not-the-government side is allied with Al Qaeda.  There really is no winning move here, including not playing the game.
 
2013-08-30 02:51:35 PM  

flondrix: There really is no winning move here, including not playing the game.


There are no right answers in this situation.. it's pretty much lose-lose, so the question is finding the move that loses the least.

Inaction is not an option.. our credibility and capital are at stake.
 
2013-08-30 02:56:33 PM  
This whole thing with Syria is kind of showing the grim reality of global politics. It'd be really nice to save people in turmoil all over the world, but that would cost money. Refugees in the Congo are in agony because of the constant civil war there but we only happen to be paying attention to this incident due to the awareness of the Arab Spring. 100,000 people have already died in Syria but politicians just got furious now because of the tragic chemical weapon attack. Not downplaying the  tragedy but just mentioning how slow and lazy people are to react to ongoing war atrocities.

We're dealing with crap that's been rooted for decades thanks to previous political alliances and especially the Cold War. And the sad truth is, we're not efficient or competent enough to save everyone and bring order. Things get in the way. Military spending, provoking other countries despite our act of good will. Getting greedy politicial and economic interests over the country we're supposed to be saving in hopes for long-term benefits. Providing security and order to the world is nowhere cut and dry.

Where President Obama goes from here will not please everyone. He pulls out to comply with the nearly universal stance against intervention and he will be accused of being weak, of 'dithering', of being heartless to the suffering Syrian people and hypocritical to his 'red line' statement. If he does roll in, we'd be spending on military again, he'll be accused of playing 'world police' and he'd be depicted as warmongering for going in despite everyone else stepping out. He either has to choose to let things continue to get farked up in Syria or go in and hope he doesn't fark things up in the short and/or long term. I'm not going to choose for him. He will have to stick to one side, understand why he's doing so and take responsibility of the heavy consequences of either decision.
 
2013-08-30 03:01:24 PM  

mrshowrules: Surool: mrshowrules: Surool: 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.

[tomjsteel.files.wordpress.com image 270x270]

We are never responsible for their sh*t. Everyone else is willing to let them all die, why do we want to do this alone and draw everyone's attacks for trying to "help"?

Listen to Spidey up thread.


I just said that "spidey graphic" isn't an excuse. You are just going to abdicate the debate then? Okay.
 
2013-08-30 03:02:54 PM  

flondrix: Both sides hate the USA, and the not-the-government side is allied with Al Qaeda.  There really is no winning move here, including not playing the game.


There is a broader war of modernity versus traditionalism.  For too often the US has done the wrong thing for the right political reasons.  Perhaps the US need to do the right thing for the sake of being the right thing.

Play a longer game if you will.  Helping groups (including Al Qaeda) and standing by the Arab people against Assad might have longer term benefits.
 
2013-08-30 03:06:42 PM  
I do not think we should do anything in Syria alone. I seem to be in agreement with pretty much everybody else.

But I have to admit, if Obama was completely against action in Syria the GOP would more than likely be all for it and would be calling Obama weak and a bad leader. Doesn't really matter though, we'll find out if he backs down and then gets jumped in an all to predictable flip by the GOP.
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report