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  
•       •       •

4320 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2013 at 9:40 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-08-30 09:05:34 AM  
12 votes:

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
2013-08-30 08:55:21 AM  
6 votes:
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.
2013-08-30 10:49:51 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:39:54 AM  
3 votes:
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 09:26:52 AM  
3 votes:

incendi: We've let quite a few minor genocides slide since the USSR collapsed. We've got no legacy to uphold in that regard. If we're concerned about sheer destruction of peoples, there should be higher priorities than the escalation of a civil war where we're at least partially fueling the escalation by supporting rebelling factions.


okay, so we'll go with the "we've never done this before, why start now?" stance.

okay then, everybody turn off the coverage of this. We're not gonna give a damn about a people that isn't us, why bother hearing about it.

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.
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:20:39 AM  
2 votes:
This whole situation is a mess. We should just walk away and let it burn.
2013-08-30 10:01:34 AM  
2 votes:
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.

www.wnd.com

img.allvoices.com
2013-08-30 09:48:02 AM  
2 votes:
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?
2013-08-30 03:25:45 PM  
1 vote:
www.washingtonpost.com
2013-08-30 03:09:44 PM  
1 vote:

Surool: 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.


Is it true though?  Does the US have a responsibility to do something by virtue of being so rich and powerful?

It is a philosophical question.  I wish this was handled as a NATO matter.  Why aren't they invoking Article 4 as this is clearly a threat to Turkey?  I would prefer this.  In any case, Obama has to proceed.  Maybe he shouldn't have drawn the red line but he has.  He has the authority which he will use but it will be short of putting boots on the ground.

In retrospect, the red line should have been drawn by NATO not Obama.  That was his mistake.  To the extent it was a mistake to commit the US, it was done several months ago and now you are stuck with it.
2013-08-30 02:56:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:52:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:21:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:21:08 AM  
1 vote:
Time for some tough love. Ready? Here goes:
i714.photobucket.com
You guys suck at nation building.
2013-08-30 11:15:42 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-08-30 10:52:21 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:51:53 AM  
1 vote:
He_Hate_Me:

There is no international norm against chemical weapons

Really?
2013-08-30 10:40:16 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:38:58 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:35:12 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:34:56 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:32:20 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:30:53 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:30:24 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:29:11 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:23:53 AM  
1 vote:
Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?
2013-08-30 10:22:21 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:18:17 AM  
1 vote:
Perhaps we should start by assassinating Assad, and see where it goes from there.
2013-08-30 10:13:48 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:03:13 AM  
1 vote:
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 09:55:30 AM  
1 vote:
gotta respect Sammy Wilson's question to the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, and the heckler who gave the real answer

"Given that the Prime Minister already has evidence of at least 14 other uses of chemical weapons on smaller scales in Syria, why is it only now that he has recalled the House to discuss intervention?'

heckler "...america!..."
2013-08-30 09:52:59 AM  
1 vote:

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?


The moment the American people saw us torturing captives and decided it was ok because terrorism.
2013-08-30 09:43:34 AM  
1 vote:

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.


Chemical weapons are bad, but go ahead and kill everyone in the neighborhood with guns and landlines cause we good with it...that sort of message is rather confusing to me.
2013-08-30 09:11:48 AM  
1 vote:

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
2013-08-30 09:05:37 AM  
1 vote:
Like a spoiled rich kid, he will do whatever he wants because shut up you are stupid
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

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