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 11
    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»



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

2013-08-30 09:50:29 AM
3 votes:
Assad tried to kill Obama's daddy.

/amidoinitrite?
2013-08-30 10:25:51 AM
2 votes:

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


Well, we tried to give the world a coke and that didn't work.
2013-08-30 10:02:43 AM
2 votes:
Since we can't declare war on terror again, what will it be this time?  Angst?
2013-08-30 03:23:02 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: mpirooz: 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.

He's not backing down.  No matter what Fartbongo does, the GOP will say it was the wrong thing.


He's the real victim in all of this mess.
2013-08-30 10:41:24 AM
1 votes:

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 10:39:54 AM
1 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 10:38:08 AM
1 votes:

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


dasbut.com
2013-08-30 10:34:56 AM
1 votes:
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 10:23:53 AM
1 votes:
Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle, United States?
2013-08-30 09:40:28 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truly it must be a renewable resource.


I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to take our guns and give them to Al Qaeda.
2013-08-30 09:26:30 AM
1 votes:
Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision

... We're still going to pretend that he has and that it's the one we don't like.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report