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 10:39:28 AM  

Yes please: I don't know why the major news networks aren't reporting this, but I read on Drudge...


Isn't that adorable!
 
2013-09-03 10:43:25 AM  
Looks like someone has learned a thing or two from North Korea.
 
2013-09-03 10:44:01 AM  

durbnpoisn: 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.


Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid the site of the chemicals as they can linger in the soil and on any surface not directly flooded by rain water.  They don't need to be breathed in, merely touching them is enough to cause death.

Lastly, they kill far easier than conventional weapons.  CWs ignore things like cover and barricades and protections.  Only specially designed air-tight bunkers and vehicles are sufficient protection from CW attacks.  The use of CWs allows the user to kill far larger numbers in a shorter period of time, making wars easier to manage and continue to a well-gassed finish.   You throw that 110k around like it's meaningful.  With CW attacks, Assad could kill that many in a month instead of 2 years.

Do you see it yet?  How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again?  Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons?   Do you see it now?
 
2013-09-03 10:44:34 AM  
Another vote for staying the hell out of it. This is my opinion, and is in no way meant to be informed commentary on foreign policy or "telling other people what to think". I have no ties to the GOP and do not support them.

/covering my bases before 21-7-B shows up.
 
2013-09-03 10:44:36 AM  
Syria is currently doing exactly the opposite of what they should be.  If they had any brains they would admit to the chemical attack, blame it on a break in the chain of command or rogue elements or 'rebel sympathizers', order a few trials of the people responsible, state 'those responsible have been sacked' and promise that it won't happen again.  All of this 'You can't prove anything, and you're too chicken to do anything even if you could' rhetoric just makes it more likely that the U.S. will feel forced to lob a few tomahawks at something.

And if Syria really is crazy enough to go after Israel in retaliation, then yes it will probably lead to a larger conflict, but no one will come of that conflict any worse than Syria.
 
2013-09-03 10:46:13 AM  
Familiar?
mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-09-03 10:46:36 AM  
The USA getting entangled in a Middle East quagmire?
cdn.instanttrap.com
 
2013-09-03 10:47:04 AM  

LasersHurt: darwin


LOL. Ok, have fun being a target then. Muslims sure as hell hate you already. Why not just add a few more to the list.

....ever notice how the rest of the planet is staying out this sh*t...and the only people pushing for a strike. Are the French. Nah. Ignore it. You got to be right, because it never backfires on you. Does it?
 
2013-09-03 10:47:16 AM  

Sentient: 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.


I like this idea.  Let's take it further, and start sending busloads of overweight American tourists over to wander around the palace taking pictures with iphones.
 
2013-09-03 10:47:51 AM  

Infernalist: 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.


So now we're attacking both the rebels and Assad's forces?  That wouldn't be a massive clusterfark for us?
 
2013-09-03 10:48:08 AM  

Infernalist: Do you see it yet? How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again? Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons? Do you see it now?


We're not the only country in the world with an interest in stopping the use of CWs. Stop pretending like somehow the US should be the caped crusader that has to do this, because we're not. We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.
 
2013-09-03 10:48:27 AM  

Infernalist: 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.


this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.
 
2013-09-03 10:49:30 AM  
Yo Assad I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but
Stalin had the best dictator mustache of all time!  OF ALL TIME
 
2013-09-03 10:49:43 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: 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?


What about it?
 
2013-09-03 10:49:51 AM  

Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.


Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.
 
2013-09-03 10:50:08 AM  

Infernalist: durbnpoisn: 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.

Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid the site of the ...


That is some right fine imagination you got there, boy.
You sound like exactly like what we have come to expect from years of government training.
 
2013-09-03 10:50:26 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: 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?


Come on! He has the French on his side!!. Ooooo. Ahhhh. The French. The scary scary French. Everyone run. The French are coming....the same asshats that had America entrenched in a 25 year war in Vietnam so they could preserve colonialism and slavery. 50,000 + American dead later, that didn't work out so hot.
 
2013-09-03 10:51:38 AM  

Begoggle: Yo Assad I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but
Stalin had the best dictator mustache of all time!  OF ALL TIME


Not even close the "The" meme, Hitler.
 
2013-09-03 10:51:52 AM  

Kit Fister: Infernalist: Do you see it yet? How CWs make killing so much easier and 'that' is why we have to retaliate and keep it from happening again? Do you see why they're up there with Nuclear Bombs and Biological weapons? Do you see it now?

We're not the only country in the world with an interest in stopping the use of CWs. Stop pretending like somehow the US should be the caped crusader that has to do this, because we're not. We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.


It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria.  I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.
 
2013-09-03 10:53:04 AM  

snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: 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.

Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can't rid th ...


Anyone who doubts me on the effects and abilities of Chemical Weapons is free to read up on it themselves.
 
2013-09-03 10:54:07 AM  

dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.


So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?
 
2013-09-03 10:54:09 AM  

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

Today in "under-informed fear mongering"...


Yea, sure, because Libya and Egypt was in no way a sign of things to come.
 
2013-09-03 10:54:47 AM  
img.fark.netapi.ning.com
Am I the only one that sees it?

/probably
 
2013-09-03 10:54:53 AM  

Kit Fister: If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?


Because they could fight back.
 
2013-09-03 10:55:13 AM  

Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.


They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.
 
2013-09-03 10:56:20 AM  

Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.


I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.
 
2013-09-03 10:56:57 AM  

Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria.   I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.


Then what do they need us for... and what are they waiting on?
 
2013-09-03 10:57:26 AM  

Kit Fister: Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.


I'm sure the world will be a much better place if the Russians were the ones leading the world.  Or maybe the Chinese.

Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?
 
2013-09-03 10:57:38 AM  

skozlaw: Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.


Terrorist groups were able to make Sarin gas and use it in attacks 2 decades ago. Do you really think lack of availability is what is stopping them from using it today?
 
2013-09-03 10:57:43 AM  

Infernalist: snocone: Infernalist: durbnpoisn: 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.

Then I'll explain it to you.  These things are so vile and so destructive that they're considered in the same class as Nuclear weapons and Biological weapons.  Many of them are persistent agents, meaning that they don't really dissipate and disappear.  Many of the more complex kinds can linger for up to 4 months, meaning that anyone entering into that area and touches 'anything' touched by the chemicals will die just as horribly as the ones killed by the initial attack.

Even rain can ...


You go read.
I'll take my first hand experience, TYVM.
 
2013-09-03 10:58:53 AM  

Carth: skozlaw: Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.

Terrorist groups were able to make Sarin gas and use it in attacks 2 decades ago. Do you really think lack of availability is what is stopping them from using it today?


It's not that at all.  It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it.  Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:22 AM  
Look, we're going to do what the Military Industrial Complex wants us to do, period.  Accept that.
In the mean time, is it just me or does he have the same feature set that Unka Mitty did?

static.tumblr.com

Big head, small face.
Didn't John Lee Hooker have a song like that?
 
2013-09-03 11:00:08 AM  

Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It should interest you to know that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have volunteered their military assets in the case of authorized strikes on Syria. I suspect that they would be the ones doing the actual bombing, with the US playing a supporting role.

They are free to act without the US leading the charge or pushing for action.

If they want to do it, more power to them. it's not our job.

I'm sure the world will be a much better place if the Russians were the ones leading the world.  Or maybe the Chinese.

Or do you honestly think that neither nation would step up and take our place if for some inexplicable reason we decided to stop being in charge?


Again, it's not our job. And, we're *totally* leading the world right now, in obesity and that's about it.
 
2013-09-03 11:00:12 AM  
Ah, remember the good ol' days when the American government wasn't chomping at the bit every couple of years to blow up some far-flung corner of the world?

Yeah, me neither.
 
2013-09-03 11:00:18 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: 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...


Well, if this is the attitude in the derposphere, I'm upping my position in Alcoa and Reynolds.
 
2013-09-03 11:00:45 AM  

snocone: Infernalist:
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.


...riiiiight... Obama just <i>decided</i> to portray chemical weapons as a Bad Thing <i>last week</i> in order to sell us on military action, because he's such a war-monger. That's definitely what happened. Both sides are bad, so Obama is just like Bush.  Obama has just been itching for a war, and chemical weapons aren't actually a big deal.
 
2013-09-03 11:01:05 AM  

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

Today in "under-informed fear mongering"...

Yea, sure, because Libya and Egypt was in no way a sign of things to come.


notsureifserious.png
 
2013-09-03 11:01:08 AM  

Marcintosh: Look, we're going to do what the Military Industrial Complex wants us to do, period.  Accept that.
In the mean time, is it just me or does he have the same feature set that Unka Mitty did?

[static.tumblr.com image 410x304]

Big head, small face.
Didn't John Lee Hooker have a song like that?


A politician is a fellow willing to lay down your life for his country.
Doesn't matter what they look like.
 
2013-09-03 11:02:18 AM  

Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.


You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).
 
2013-09-03 11:03:26 AM  
He reminds me more of ole' Dimwit Flathead

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 11:03:49 AM  
cnsnews.com

I can smell you from here.

www.theblaze.com

Seriously John, you smell like a  French whore.

thisainthell.us

Nancy, you smell like you couldn't dodge the mall perfume ladies.

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

This is better.  The smell of falafel masks you both.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:05 AM  

Infernalist: Carth: skozlaw: Kit Fister: We have more important shiat to deal with at home than mount unilateral attacks.

I'll be sure to remember that in a few years when five tons of sarin and a few warheads can't be accounted for in the aftermath of this little shindig that already sees a number of terror groups involved.

Terrorist groups were able to make Sarin gas and use it in attacks 2 decades ago. Do you really think lack of availability is what is stopping them from using it today?

It's not that at all.  It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it.  Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.


yea, they might be arrested, prosecuted and forced to change their name like Aum Shinrikyo.

Terrorists don't use chemical weapons because for the amount of effort, planning and luck involved they can get a higher body count other ways. People who are willing to suicide bomb aren't exactly worried about what will happen if they get caught.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:22 AM  

Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).


Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.
 
2013-09-03 11:04:46 AM  

the_foo: snocone: Infernalist:
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.

...riiiiight... Obama just <i>decided</i> to portray chemical weapons as a Bad Thing <i>last week</i> in order to sell us on military action, because he's such a war-monger. That's definitely what happened. Both sides are bad, so Obama is just like Bush.  Obama has just been itching for a war, and chemical weapons aren't actually a big deal.


Listen idiot, there are perfectly good reasons NOT to use chemical and biological agents.
None of them confused with your petty "morality" you have been spoon fed by the political heros.
You don't use them because they are not controllable and ALWAYS bite your ass. Not because they are not "nice".
 
2013-09-03 11:04:51 AM  

the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.


No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.
 
2013-09-03 11:06:10 AM  
Old farking news. It was obvious he wasn't going to go out like a biatch.
 
2013-09-03 11:07:21 AM  

Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user.  And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.


LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?
 
2013-09-03 11:07:38 AM  

Kit Fister: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?


I responded to your bout of ignorance yesterday about this. Again:

the US isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting in world affairs.

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya).  France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
 
2013-09-03 11:08:57 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: Sentient: 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.

I like this idea.  Let's take it further, and start sending busloads of overweight American tourists over to wander around the palace taking pictures with iphones.


Put a Starbucks next to a wal-mart (with another Starbucks inside the wal-mart), and schedule air drops of Entertainment Weekly. Syria would be ours in matter of weeks
 
2013-09-03 11:10:13 AM  

dumbobruni: Kit Fister: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

So, your position is that we have, what, a moral imperative to go in there and destroy those sites, regardless? If we're going by that logic, why are we not invading every time Russia, China, India, or any other nation commits atrocious crimes?

Seriously, and you never answered this question, why is it the US's job, solely, to use military action every time another nation does something like this and not the job of the UN Security Council as a whole to take correct steps and put the responsibility on all members of the Security Council together?

I responded to your bout of ignorance yesterday about this. Again:

the US isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting in world affairs.

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya).  France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


You're right, my bad. But that doesn't explain why you're so desperate for us to use military action here.
 
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 »






Report