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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Assad: You attack me, I take this whole region down with me. The world hasn't seen such regional destruction since the Great War. Also, I look like Captain Darling. Your justification for war is invalid   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 383
    More: Scary, Syrian President Bashar, Le Figaro, french newspapers, regions, Heads of state of Syria  
•       •       •

18083 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 10:13:32 AM  
Subby could get a job at Fox.
 
2013-09-03 10:13:48 AM  

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?


Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:10 AM  

bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.


I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:29 AM  

DrunkBastard: I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval por


Russia ain't going to war to defend Assad. They'll hamstring the Security Council and take other diplomatic measures, but the risk of actual military intervention is zero.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:32 AM  

LasersHurt: URAPNIS: Infernalist: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

Syria is not going to be liberated by us.

Why not? Afghanistan was.

Nobody is suggesting anything even remotely LIKE Afghanistan.


Yea, there is NO farking opium in Syria.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:42 AM  
Good.

Wave of holy fire and all that.  Do it already.  The quicker we can forget about the farking middle east the better.
 
2013-09-03 10:14:52 AM  

URAPNIS: Infernalist: snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.
Whatever will we do next?

Syria is not going to be liberated by us.

Why not? Afghanistan was.


Not sure if serious. Liberated?  Afghanistan is a f*cking mess.
 
2013-09-03 10:15:51 AM  
Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.
 
2013-09-03 10:17:45 AM  

netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.


As long as it is your debt and not that of the 1% War Profiteers'.
 
2013-09-03 10:18:54 AM  
img.fark.netimg.fark.net
 
2013-09-03 10:19:36 AM  
somewhat related

This weekend, my Tea Party loving father told me how impressive Putin is when we were discussing the ramifications of Syria. He gets all his talking points from the usual suspects. He also shat all over John McCain because of his comments that may have sounded like they were originally supportive of Obama.

So, the most noble America loving are now enamored with a foreign leader that hates us, want us to not go to war because the President might want to (even though they have never avoided war talk in the past - strong military spending and such) and continue to turn their backs on the man they think should have originally won the White House.

7 years ago my father was a registered Democrat - then he got old and a nonwhite man became president.

/not CSB
 
2013-09-03 10:19:43 AM  
If you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body
 
2013-09-03 10:19:44 AM  
Anyone else see a picture of Assad and be surprised that he looks like a farking Norweigan and not some dark swarthy middle easterner?
 
2013-09-03 10:20:05 AM  

netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.


We'll just have to "liberate" our debt to China down the road.
 
2013-09-03 10:20:30 AM  

ReverendJasen: LasersHurt: Unhip1: "I knew he was evil , because of his physical features.."
Really, guys?

I believe those are called jokes. Lighten up.

Francis must be a blast at parties.


You must be awesome at funerals.

/sorry your logon + low hanging fruit
 
2013-09-03 10:20:43 AM  

YoOjo: His dildo got stuck up in his ass so he's not feeling too good, he'll behave just fine again once he gets a scare and sharts it back out.


Experience speaks...
 
2013-09-03 10:20:49 AM  
And wtf is up with all the evil politicians having extremely close eyes? Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, etc....
 
2013-09-03 10:21:14 AM  

netcentric: Attacking Syria seems like a good opportunity to spend more US taxpayer money.    Burn up some fuel, rockets and bombs and rack up some more debt.     Maybe China will lend us more money.  Borrowed debt is always good.



That's pretty close.  Once the shooting starts, and the 'limited strikes' start expanding, this war will be used to justify increasing the debt ceiling and to silence dissent on obamacare (not to mention silencing inquiries into the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, etc,).

Thus, the 'urgency' of this...
 
2013-09-03 10:21:18 AM  
I don't know why we are the middle man and just let China handle it.
 
2013-09-03 10:21:39 AM  

snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.


If you don't grasp it, I can't help you.  Well, I could, but I don't really feel up to trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
 
2013-09-03 10:22:06 AM  
So yeah, still no actual evidence that the Syrian regime launched that attack.

More evidence that the rebels actually did, as they are claiming:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE 94 409Z20130505

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
...
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added[.]


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/20137920448105510.h tm l

Russia has presented evidence to the UN it says shows Syrian rebels attacked regime forces with sarin gas that was produced in "cottage industry" conditions.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russian experts had been to the scene of the attack at Khan al-Assal near Aleppo and gathered firsthand evidence.

He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile was "not a standard one for chemical use".

He added that, according to information gathered by Russia, production of the projectiles started in February by the "Basha'ir al-Nasr' brigade", which is affiliated with the Free Syrian Army.


From May and July, respectively.

Thanks for your time, continue with your idiotic posturing and dick waving that will certainly not come back to bite your children's generation in the ass.
 
2013-09-03 10:22:10 AM  
So, you'll take down Assad, and in will come a Al-Qaeda friendly gov't.


Good plan.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:02 AM  

indarwinsshadow: So, you'll take down Assad, and in will come a Al-Qaeda friendly gov't.


Today in "under-informed fear mongering"...
 
2013-09-03 10:23:09 AM  

you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.


Assad is likely a mass murdering war criminal but I don't think he is engaging in genocide. He seems to be killing anyone who disagree with him not targeting people of a specific race, religion or nationality.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:20 AM  

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?


People are dead? Is that the significance, because if that's what you're going with what about the first approx 100,000 deaths? Does how they died matter to the dead? Why didn't we intervene then? Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.
 
2013-09-03 10:23:37 AM  
I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge that Obama just fabricated the whole red line. There's literally zero evidence that it exists except as a conceit of his imagination.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:11 AM  

snocone: Ahh, I see his problem.
Like many, he assumes "the truth" has anything whatsoever to do with his sorry ass being removed.

Fools! Just like "the spoon", there is no true "truth", only theatre brought to you by the 1%.
You should feel swell. They still waste time manufacturing a "truth" for you.
Won't bother tomorrow.


I can actually visualize the  Che Guevara shirt you're wearing while you type that.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:19 AM  
SHOW US PROOF!

uh.  how about we don't care.  But crimes against humanity!
Nobody called the world police, so lets stay home.

If anything, the reliance on drones has made war so easy with so few casualties on our side, that we might get involved in order to justify a larger defense budget.
 
2013-09-03 10:24:28 AM  

doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.


Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.
 
2013-09-03 10:25:03 AM  
As said by the guy cornered with his gun to his head...

With or without a US strike, the chances of a regional war are probably better than 50%. Slightly higher if there is a strike.

I say let Netanyahu do it.
 
2013-09-03 10:26:24 AM  

you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.


I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?
 
2013-09-03 10:27:05 AM  

LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.


What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.
 
2013-09-03 10:27:09 AM  

LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.


yeah they have to keep up the facade. Saddam was the same way.
 
2013-09-03 10:28:14 AM  

Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.


None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.
 
2013-09-03 10:28:48 AM  

Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?

Your significance is insignificant.
A boogyman created for your ire and outrage to vilify the villain Du Jour.

If you don't grasp it, I can't help you.  Well, I could, but I don't really feel up to trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.


Here, have another hank of rope.
Maybe 1,500 killed by CW.
100,000 by hand to hand.
But, what do numbers mean when we are talking outrage and ire?
 
2013-09-03 10:29:03 AM  

LasersHurt: Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.

None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.


Then lets leave the 'international community' out of the issue. They don't seem too concerned.
 
2013-09-03 10:29:37 AM  
He first has to unload a lorry load of paperclips.
 
2013-09-03 10:30:34 AM  

bdub77: you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?


Yea, it would be so much better to drop a nice clean Tomahawk on the school that shields the radar installation.
Not to mention the hospital built on top of communications bunker.
Just wow.
 
2013-09-03 10:30:56 AM  

Carth: LasersHurt: Carth: LasersHurt: doomjesse: Truth is this is about ego and "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality.

Yes that's the only reason that the international community restricts indiscriminate weapons.

What other members of the international community are agreeing to take part in strikes against Syria? Has the US found any allies willing to share the burden of kinect military action yet? You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.

None of that has anything to do with his point, or my issue with that point.

Then lets leave the 'international community' out of the issue. They don't seem too concerned.


I guess you're not getting the point? He said it was "ego" and "  "you'll do as you're told or else" mentality ". I'm suggesting that it's more about international convention, and he's just phrasing it shiattily. Whether or not the other nations have decided to ignore it is not really relevant.
 
2013-09-03 10:31:16 AM  

Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?


Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country.  Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing.  But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it.  I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.
 
2013-09-03 10:31:18 AM  

Shrugging Atlas: snocone: Ahh, I see his problem.
Like many, he assumes "the truth" has anything whatsoever to do with his sorry ass being removed.

Fools! Just like "the spoon", there is no true "truth", only theatre brought to you by the 1%.
You should feel swell. They still waste time manufacturing a "truth" for you.
Won't bother tomorrow.

I can actually visualize the  Che Guevara shirt you're wearing while you type that.


CHE LIVES!
 
2013-09-03 10:34:55 AM  

seniorgato: SHOW US PROOF!

uh.  how about we don't care.  But crimes against humanity!
Nobody called the world police, so lets stay home.

If anything, the reliance on drones has made war so easy with so few casualties on our side, that we might get involved in order to justify a larger defense budget.



I don't think we have even started to see the Politics of this start yet.    When Congress gets to starting the back room deals on Capitol Hill,  you could end up with a removal of the Budget cap for October.   Deals to remove sequestration.   Hell, if Obama plays this right he might get the nod to throw in a slight tax increase (and get to pick what he chooses to spend it on).

You want to strike Syria? wellllllll....we're gonna have to cut some deals.....How much debt we want to rack up boys!?   Step up to the table, lets play.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:17 AM  

Carth: You'd think Obama could at least convince Canada, the UK and some token NATO forces to help out if the international community really feels strongly about the issue.



Canada?

What about the REST of the Western Hemisphere?
 
2013-09-03 10:35:19 AM  

bdub77: you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it.  Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?


In this case, toppling assad/killing assad will only lead to some other bad guys being in charge over there.  I'll be happy with us removing the ability to use CWs.  Screw assad, let the rebels deal with him.
 
2013-09-03 10:35:31 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: And wtf is up with all the evil politicians having extremely close eyes? Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, etc....


Maybe they are Reptiloids?
 
2013-09-03 10:35:33 AM  
Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless.  If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.
 
2013-09-03 10:36:00 AM  
You know who else is pretty good at killing civilians?
 
2013-09-03 10:36:05 AM  

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this.  Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof".  Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack?  "We told you not to gas you people, and you did.  We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down.  And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing.  That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification?  Chemical Weapons have been used.  Do you grasp the significance of that?


No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.
 
2013-09-03 10:37:04 AM  

Dog Welder: Infernalist: Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

Used by whom?

Assad gains nothing by dropping sarin gas on civilians in his own country.  Doing so earns the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who all think it's okay) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes no logical sense for him to do such a thing.

Al Qaeda insurgents, on the other hand, have everything to gain by directing the ire of the world (except Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and threats of and/or impending military strikes from foreign powers.  It makes rational sense for them to use any seized chemical weapons on civilians and point the blame at Assad.

Yes, we know chemical weapons were used on civilians and this is a Very Bad Thing.  But until we know for certain what we're getting ourselves into, we need to stay out of it.  I'm okay with sanctions and sending tersely worded letters from the UN, but that's it until we have definitive proof of who did this.


Doesn't matter who did it.  Either it was Assad or the rebels.  The most prudent path to take would be to eliminate the launching vehicles on both sides so that we ensure that whoever did it, they won't be able to do it again.
 
2013-09-03 10:39:01 AM  

durbnpoisn: No.  I really don't.  Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell.  And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.


The overall deaths amount to a few hundred a day, mostly of fighters. The chemical attacks killed, what, 1400 people at once, mostly civilians?

The difference is between discriminate weapons that you aim at troops, versus indiscriminate area affect weapons aimed at civilian populations.

This creates enough difference in the cases to acknowledge it, for many people.
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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