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.

(CNN)   GOP hawks tie Syria military action to removal of sequester cuts for the military. "We have to take care of our own people first" heroic Republican Rep. Buck McKeon says   (cnn.com) divider line 275
    More: Obvious, Republican Rep, Buck McKeon, GOP, Syrians, austerities, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, President Bashar, House Armed Services Committee  
•       •       •

1985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2013 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-02 12:41:22 PM
Yeah, all he did was talk about cuts to the military and how Obama has raped the military how he only lets them fly Cessnas and makes soldiers go into combat with wooden guns.

It's like he started out to actually discussing the issue and then the talking points exploded in his head. He may have suffered a traumatic brain injury from all the derp.
 
2013-09-02 12:47:59 PM

NewportBarGuy: Yeah, all he did was talk about cuts to the military and how Obama has raped the military how he only lets them fly Cessnas and makes soldiers go into combat with wooden guns.

It's like he started out to actually discussing the issue and then the talking points exploded in his head. He may have suffered a traumatic brain injury from all the derp.


A cerebral derporrhage, if you will
 
2013-09-02 01:02:55 PM
toomuchwharrgarbl.jpg
 
2013-09-02 01:23:59 PM
There's a real simple way to get rid of the Military Sequestration, GOPtards.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-09-02 02:34:04 PM
Yes, because when I think of the US military, the first thing that comes to mind is "underfunded."

/ won't somebody PLEASE think of the bayonet manufacturers??
 
2013-09-02 02:36:57 PM
Full of obvious GOP talking points about the military cuts and sequestration.

The only thing I concur with is quoted below for your viewing pleasure.

FTA: The argument is that failure to take action against Syria undermines the deterrent of international action against chemical weapons use, emboldening al-Assad and his key allies -- Hezbollah and Iran -- who will see a lack of consequences for such a flagrant violation.
 
2013-09-02 02:39:09 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Yes, because when I think of the US military, the first thing that comes to mind is "underfunded."

/ won't somebody PLEASE think of the bayonet manufacturers??


Depends on what weapons systems are needed, what requires maintenance and replacement, what new technologies can be incorporated into our systems and, of course, how much do we pay our personnel, both civilian and military.
 
2013-09-02 02:45:57 PM
This is going to get hysterical before it's all over

/still got my money on defunding Obamacare being the chief demand
 
2013-09-02 02:48:45 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This is going to get hysterical before it's all over

/still got my money on defunding Obamacare being the chief demand


Oh I have my money on that too, just because the teatards still have that bit in their teeth.
 
2013-09-02 02:49:51 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This is going to get hysterical before it's all over

/still got my money on defunding Obamacare being the chief demand


Which is what I said at Thanksgiving and here we are again.
 
2013-09-02 02:50:26 PM
www.warisboring.com


MOAR FUNDING!
 
2013-09-02 03:36:03 PM
Yeah, we're dangerously stingy when it comes to the military.
 
2013-09-02 03:40:55 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This is going to get hysterical before it's all over

/still got my money on defunding Obamacare being the chief demand


Now I'm thinking it'll morph from deciding on whether to take military action to something ending in "-gate".

One thing's guaranteed: they'll stupid it up one way or another before they're done.
 
2013-09-02 03:43:33 PM
I'm shocked he made it through without talking about the $300 billion apiece spent each week on ACORN, Planned Parenthood, PBS and repairing the damage to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan after Obama demanded it be sailed up I-70 to deliver golf balls.
 
2013-09-02 03:51:15 PM
And I suspect there's our answer.  A big fat whopping NO.
 
2013-09-02 03:53:28 PM
Support for Syrian intervention is tied to increased funding for the military?

Great!  Let's do neither!
 
2013-09-02 03:57:14 PM

AirForceVet: Full of obvious GOP talking points about the military cuts and sequestration.

The only thing I concur with is quoted below for your viewing pleasure.

FTA: The argument is that failure to take action against Syria undermines the deterrent of international action against chemical weapons use, emboldening al-Assad and his key allies -- Hezbollah and Iran -- who will see a lack of consequences for such a flagrant violation.


Question: Do we even know whether the chemicals were used by Assad or the rebels yet?
 
2013-09-02 03:58:06 PM

Mugato: Yeah, we're dangerously stingy when it comes to the military.


We kinda are.  But we are very generous with military contractors.  God bless the free market!
 
2013-09-02 03:58:06 PM
And by "our people", he means the military-industrial complex? Right?
 
2013-09-02 03:58:26 PM
Tax cuts for the rich would easily pay for it
 
2013-09-02 03:59:14 PM

SomeAmerican: Support for Syrian intervention is tied to increased funding for the military?

Great!  Let's do neither!


This.
 
2013-09-02 03:59:25 PM

Fupac: And by "our people", he means the military-industrial complex? Right?


I would have to assume he meant rich white religious Republicans.
 
2013-09-02 04:00:12 PM
Lionel Mandrake: Yes, because when I think of the US military, the first thing that comes to mind is "underfunded."

/ won't somebody PLEASE think of the bayonet manufacturers??

Depends on what weapons systems are needed, what requires maintenance and replacement, what new technologies can be incorporated into our systems and, of course,  how much do we pay our personnel, both civilian and military.


Just make them all contractors and triple their pay.  Cut costs by making them supply their own uniforms.  NFL and NBA jerseys totally acceptable.

The VA waiting rooms are getting crowded anyways.
 
2013-09-02 04:00:44 PM
More military, fewer public services. A surefire pathway to prosperity!
 
2013-09-02 04:02:05 PM
We need to take care of our own first - except for teachers, scientists, the sick, the elderly, the poor, college students, the unemployed, the middle class, blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, and anyone who drives on bridges.  Aside from those people, we need to take care of our own.
 
2013-09-02 04:02:12 PM
McCain and Graham are have jointly expressed concerns that a military strike should be part of a broader strategy in Syria, not simply a random attack to punish the regime.


Oh, boy.
 
2013-09-02 04:02:49 PM

JohnnyC: Fupac: And by "our people", he means the military-industrial complex? Right?

I would have to assume he meant rich white religious Republicans.


Perfect!
 
2013-09-02 04:02:58 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: McCain and Graham are have jointly expressed concerns that a military strike should be part of a broader strategy in Syria, not simply a random attack to punish the regime.


Oh, boy.


Do you think the President is doing this in order to give the world a glimpse of how the GOP would do things in his place?
 
2013-09-02 04:03:38 PM
Ladies and gentleman, behold the GOP Human Centipede.
 
2013-09-02 04:05:14 PM

AspectRatio: Ladies and gentleman, behold the GOP Human Centipede.


um, Commander-in-Chief?
 
2013-09-02 04:10:29 PM
why do we have to back a side in every conflict? maybe when both sides are against us we should just let them have it out and see whats left in the end.
 
2013-09-02 04:13:00 PM
Sometimes two wrongs can make a right.
 
2013-09-02 04:13:29 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: McCain and Graham are have jointly expressed concerns that a military strike should be part of a broader strategy in Syria, not simply a random attack to punish the regime.


Oh, boy.


Don't worry, all they mean is putting boots on the ground, paving the way for Christian evangelists and multinational corporations to take hold of the people. Once they're all coked up on Disney and Jesus, the Syrians will certainly love us afterward! It worked when Cheney and Rumsfeld tried it in Iraq, right?
 
2013-09-02 04:15:27 PM
"our own people" clearly being defense lobbyists.
 
2013-09-02 04:20:23 PM

LikeALeafOnTheWind: why do we have to back a side in every conflict? maybe when both sides are against us we should just let them have it out and see whats left in the end.


The issue here is the use of chemical weapons. The US is taking the position that use of chemical weapons must lead to a response, lest other actors begin to get the idea that use of chemical weapons is okie-dokie. You may or may not find this line of reasoning persuasive, but it isn't simply a matter of choosing horses just for the sake of having a stake in the race. There is a general principle being invoked that is more or less unique to this particular conflict.
 
2013-09-02 04:22:47 PM

BMulligan: LikeALeafOnTheWind: why do we have to back a side in every conflict? maybe when both sides are against us we should just let them have it out and see whats left in the end.

The issue here is the use of chemical weapons. The US is taking the position that use of chemical weapons must lead to a response, lest other actors begin to get the idea that use of chemical weapons is okie-dokie. You may or may not find this line of reasoning persuasive, but it isn't simply a matter of choosing horses just for the sake of having a stake in the race. There is a general principle being invoked that is more or less unique to this particular conflict.


And technically, if we target both sides when it comes to disabling and destroying missile launchers and artillery, then we're not choosing sides at all.
 
2013-09-02 04:25:36 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: McCain and Graham are have jointly expressed concerns that a military strike should be part of a broader strategy in Syria, not simply a random attack to punish the regime.


Oh, boy.



Aren't they right though? What is the point of airstrikes, drones or cruise missiles right now, all it will do is kill civilians. What is Obama going to bomb because I'm sure you can't blow up a chemical weapons facility without the chemicals doing some collateral damage, which would be a bit more than a tad hypocritical.

Either go all out to get rid of Assad and install another government (who knows what this will entail due to the mixed and frankly scary make up of "the rebels") At least the Libyans had a shadow govt set up to take over and rally behind where as everything in Syria seems desperate and disorganised. You are more likely to end up with a power vacuum like in Iraq and Afghanistan and we know how well those govts have functioned and haven't at all lead to a rise in terrorist activities in those countries. And if you can't live with those consequences then you are better off doing nothing.
 
2013-09-02 04:27:17 PM

AirForceVet: Full of obvious GOP talking points about the military cuts and sequestration.

The only thing I concur with is quoted below for your viewing pleasure.

FTA: The argument is that failure to take action against Syria undermines the deterrent of international action against chemical weapons use, emboldening al-Assad and his key allies -- Hezbollah and Iran -- who will see a lack of consequences for such a flagrant violation.


Which is why Obama should have already carried out the attack.  Waiting two weeks or more while Congress dicks around with an authorization only serves to weaken the response if it is a simple cruise missile attack.  Or it forces Obama to conduct an actual military campaign which he does not want to do, but Congress will tell him HE MUST DO.

I hate to say it, but the President blew this one.  He let his comments get the better of him and now is not willing to take the political risks of leadership.
 
2013-09-02 04:28:00 PM

Faddy: Snatch Bandergrip: McCain and Graham are have jointly expressed concerns that a military strike should be part of a broader strategy in Syria, not simply a random attack to punish the regime.


Oh, boy.


Aren't they right though? What is the point of airstrikes, drones or cruise missiles right now, all it will do is kill civilians. What is Obama going to bomb because I'm sure you can't blow up a chemical weapons facility without the chemicals doing some collateral damage, which would be a bit more than a tad hypocritical.

Either go all out to get rid of Assad and install another government (who knows what this will entail due to the mixed and frankly scary make up of "the rebels") At least the Libyans had a shadow govt set up to take over and rally behind where as everything in Syria seems desperate and disorganised. You are more likely to end up with a power vacuum like in Iraq and Afghanistan and we know how well those govts have functioned and haven't at all lead to a rise in terrorist activities in those countries. And if you can't live with those consequences then you are better off doing nothing.


Or...you can simply target the artillery units and missile vehicles used to launch the CWs and avoid all that mess.
 
2013-09-02 04:28:43 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Yes, because when I think of the US military, the first thing that comes to mind is "underfunded."

/ won't somebody PLEASE think of the bayonet manufacturers??


Honestly, its not that the military is over or underfunded, its that its required by congress to spend all of its money on very specific pet projects. Money for things the military really wants to spend money on is generally underfunded. Ever worked for a government office where you had to buy a bunch of tonor and supplies to justify your next year budget. The same shiat goes on there. Then when you cut 20% across the board one year, yeah its pretty much impossible to meet budgets.
 
2013-09-02 04:29:50 PM

Close2TheEdge: Or it forces Obama to conduct an actual military campaign which he does not want to do, but Congress will tell him HE MUST DO.


Bingo.
 
2013-09-02 04:34:42 PM

Infernalist: Or...you can simply target the artillery units and missile vehicles used to launch the CWs and avoid all that mess.


Is it that easy?  Serious question.  In a problem with no easy answer, that seems like an obvious one - simply remove the ability of Assad to launch chemicals.  At the same time, our foreign military adventures have a consistent 'in for a penny, in for a pound' mindset.  Is it actually possible for us to dip a toe in without falling in and drowning?
 
2013-09-02 04:39:42 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This is going to get hysterical before it's all over

/still got my money on defunding Obamacare being the chief demand


images.blu-ray.com

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we will be lucky to live through it.
 
2013-09-02 04:40:45 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: Infernalist: Or...you can simply target the artillery units and missile vehicles used to launch the CWs and avoid all that mess.

Is it that easy?  Serious question.  In a problem with no easy answer, that seems like an obvious one - simply remove the ability of Assad to launch chemicals.  At the same time, our foreign military adventures have a consistent 'in for a penny, in for a pound' mindset.  Is it actually possible for us to dip a toe in without falling in and drowning?


Libya? Obviously one can quibble specifics here and there but that felt pretty "dip in a toe" to me.

Obviously it all sounds easy when we summarize in single sentences on Fark, but anyone who's not a fool knows it's more complicated - but "more complicated" doesn't necessarily mean "worst case scenario" either.
 
2013-09-02 04:43:40 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: Infernalist: Or...you can simply target the artillery units and missile vehicles used to launch the CWs and avoid all that mess.

Is it that easy?  Serious question.  In a problem with no easy answer, that seems like an obvious one - simply remove the ability of Assad to launch chemicals.  At the same time, our foreign military adventures have a consistent 'in for a penny, in for a pound' mindset.  Is it actually possible for us to dip a toe in without falling in and drowning?


CWs require certain types of launching vehicles.  Mostly artillery units and missile vehicles.  And CWs are never kept 'in the chamber' as they say.  They're kept under lock and key until such time as a CW attack is ordered from on high.  So you can completely demolish their ability to launch those CWs(ON BOTH SIDES) by simply destroying the launching vehicles.

Which, incidentally enough, Assad has started moving into civilian areas and out of the battlefield.  because we waited too long.
 
2013-09-02 04:44:53 PM

Close2TheEdge: AirForceVet: Full of obvious GOP talking points about the military cuts and sequestration.

The only thing I concur with is quoted below for your viewing pleasure.

FTA: The argument is that failure to take action against Syria undermines the deterrent of international action against chemical weapons use, emboldening al-Assad and his key allies -- Hezbollah and Iran -- who will see a lack of consequences for such a flagrant violation.

Which is why Obama should have already carried out the attack.  Waiting two weeks or more while Congress dicks around with an authorization only serves to weaken the response if it is a simple cruise missile attack.  Or it forces Obama to conduct an actual military campaign which he does not want to do, but Congress will tell him HE MUST DO.

I hate to say it, but the President blew this one.  He let his comments get the better of him and now is not willing to take the political risks of leadership.


He does looks weak as a result of not yet acting on his "red line" comments, but his actions at least suggest he also farked up and is just backing down. It doesn't look corageous but it's preferable to the possibility of a general war in the Middle East breaking involving Israel, Iran, Turkey, gulf states, etc.
 
2013-09-02 04:46:01 PM
This is not at all like when bush 1 and bush 2 did it.   bush 3 is different because he has a d after his name.
 
2013-09-02 04:46:35 PM

Zeno-25: Close2TheEdge: AirForceVet: Full of obvious GOP talking points about the military cuts and sequestration.

The only thing I concur with is quoted below for your viewing pleasure.

FTA: The argument is that failure to take action against Syria undermines the deterrent of international action against chemical weapons use, emboldening al-Assad and his key allies -- Hezbollah and Iran -- who will see a lack of consequences for such a flagrant violation.

Which is why Obama should have already carried out the attack.  Waiting two weeks or more while Congress dicks around with an authorization only serves to weaken the response if it is a simple cruise missile attack.  Or it forces Obama to conduct an actual military campaign which he does not want to do, but Congress will tell him HE MUST DO.

I hate to say it, but the President blew this one.  He let his comments get the better of him and now is not willing to take the political risks of leadership.

He does looks weak as a result of not yet acting on his "red line" comments, but his actions at least suggest he also farked up and is just backing down. It doesn't look corageous but it's preferable to the possibility of a general war in the Middle East breaking involving Israel, Iran, Turkey, gulf states, etc.


*he (Obama) also knows he farked up

/meant to say
 
2013-09-02 04:47:47 PM

LasersHurt: Libya? Obviously one can quibble specifics here and there but that felt pretty "dip in a toe" to me.


That's true, Libya went pretty well.  I admit, I chalked that up to uncommon luck.

Can we take that position?  "The only military action we seek is to disable Assad from using chemical weapons, and nothing more"?
 
2013-09-02 04:49:04 PM
Hasn't Syria promised to bomb Israel if we bomb Syria?
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report