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  
•       •       •

18078 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 9:44 AM (51 weeks 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 11:45:54 AM
Assad has really flown off the handle ever since he found out that Walt poisoned Brock.
 
2013-09-03 11:46:45 AM
Looks like the guy that sold me a used car.
 
2013-09-03 11:46:56 AM

dumbobruni: don't care who used them, they need to be removed from play.

Israel already bombed a weapons convoy in Syria without provocation, and WW3 didn't start.

in the first Iraq war, Saddam hit Israel with over 40 missiles. WW3 didn't start.


Fine. i concede. Let's go bomb Syria balls out and take out the chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-03 11:49:46 AM

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

Isn't that adorable!

You might want to read the rest of his post there, Lou.


Shhh, let him shoot from the hip.  Its good to see more people shoot first, then ask questions.
 
2013-09-03 11:50:13 AM

69gnarkill69: [www.enduringamerica.com image 298x420]
[assets.diylol.com image 510x383]


Oh, my god.  Someone please do the Wol Smoth tiny face thing to that first picture.  I have to see what it would look like
 
2013-09-03 11:50:15 AM
So the "change" part of "hope and change" actually meant slightly changing the theater of war and expanding it.

/nobel peace prize winner
 
2013-09-03 11:50:57 AM

foxyshadis: Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.


You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.
 
2013-09-03 11:51:06 AM
Oh, good, a new one. "yay"
 
2013-09-03 11:51:40 AM
Hate to say it, but the guy sounds a lot more logical and aware than our people.
 
2013-09-03 11:52:01 AM

I_C_Weener: Shhh, let him shoot from the hip. Its good to see more people shoot first, then ask questions.


Well, in his defense, the person he is shooting at does have a bit of a history of being a troll.  But in this case he was doing some high quality humor/funny trolling.
 
2013-09-03 11:53:30 AM

Autarky: So the "change" part of "hope and change" actually meant slightly changing the theater of war and expanding it.

/nobel peace prize winner


I think the whole Libya, Egypt, Syria stuff is a consequence of Afghanistan, Iraq and our support of Israel, and Turkey being a strong part of NATO.  Enough pressure is placed on an area, and it starts to crack.  Hopefully, the result is more post-Iron Curtain, not post-assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
 
2013-09-03 11:54:00 AM

Dog Welder: dumbobruni: this, times a billion.

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

I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist.  My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons.  My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us?  We take out Assad and then what?  We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons?  You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.


THIS.
 
2013-09-03 11:54:11 AM

nucular_option: There's nothing cushy about the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corp!


That's why I'm joining the 20 Minuters!

/Err, sorry old chap, me ears went pop on the first go.
 
2013-09-03 11:55:48 AM

Billy Bathsalt: 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.


Tourists? I say we take all of the info that the NSA is collecting and use it to reinstate the draft. They could easily mine through forum posts to look for true patriots like Infernalist who would obviously have no qualms about going over there and forcibly spreading some freedom. Then we draft these badasses, give them some weapons and air drop them on Damascus.
 
2013-09-03 11:56:46 AM

ferretman: You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.


Not according to the Air Force.
 
2013-09-03 11:56:51 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 the way you think.
 
2013-09-03 11:57:03 AM

Yes please: 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.


You can only see the line if you use one of those plastic strip decoders from cereal boxes.
 
2013-09-03 11:57:51 AM

Autarky: So the "change" part of "hope and change" actually meant slightly changing the theater of war and expanding it.

/nobel peace prize winner


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-09-03 11:58:26 AM

InfrasonicTom: Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.

then what?


There's an Afterparty?
 
2013-09-03 11:59:31 AM
Dictators like to say stupid shiat like that, mostly for INTERNAL consumption.

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-09-03 12:00:20 PM

Fart_Machine: ferretman: You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.

Not according to the Air Force.


Yeah, and chemical weapons don't respond well to explosives to begin with. You can't just stick a balloon of sarin gas in a conventional warhead because the sarin won't become a cloud, but will be mostly destroyed. The same is true of dropping a bomb on chemical weapons stores. It might make for a complicated clean-up situation, but it isn't going to simply be the same as if those weapons were used.
 
2013-09-03 12:00:20 PM
Leave Syria alone.

They will nuke and poison themselves all on their own and then we can mach in unopposed, plunder their riches and give care to the survivors while looking like humanitarians.

Humanitarians that are making shiat tons of money.
 
2013-09-03 12:01:07 PM

Egoy3k: 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.

It's hard to say how much understanding they do have.  On the one hand it's obvious that the full might of a modern superpower could swat them like a fly there are several reasons why they might not consider this a real threat.

1) Western nations are very squeamish about letting their soldiers do their jobs.  They impose ROE and missions that hamstring their armed forces and cause unnecessary casualties on their own soldiers.  We also tend to get upset about any of our soldiers who die in combat and are easily fatigued by this.

2) Recent history of mismanaged conflicts points to the fact the barely literate and poorly trained insurgents can inflict damage on a western military. Sure that damage is usually at the expense of many more insurgent lives but see point one about why it's worth it for their leaders.  When they lose soldier they are 'martyrs' for the cause and everyone is happy.  When a national guardsman with a wife and two kids gets killed we are demoralized.

3)It's possible that these leaders have sycophant military "advisers" who tell them that they can stand toe to toe with the west and they don't have enough outside experience to know that they are being lied to.

4)They really haven't seen the full capabilities of a fully modern military because none of the recent conflicts have warranted anything other than cold war era hardware.


THIS.  Why go into a fight blindfolded, with both arms and one leg tied behind your back?  It's a bullshiat strategy!
 
2013-09-03 12:01:49 PM
Good morning, Darling.
 
2013-09-03 12:02:43 PM
The chance for a regional war exists?
No shiat.
 
2013-09-03 12:03:23 PM

ferretman: foxyshadis: Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.

You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.


Hence why you bomb the crap out of the delivery systems instead.  They could still use mortar and old school open the can approach but beyond that have fun fighting the rebels w/o any fancy toys
 
2013-09-03 12:03:38 PM

snocone: Since those "sites" are schools, hospitals, public offices, as the guy on AGT sang, "Whatca gonna do?"


Build new ones.
 
2013-09-03 12:05:32 PM
This liberal war machine is going to be the end of us all!! Where are the anti war protests? I want to join. Obama lied, a soldier died! Kerri did it for OIL! It's all for Halliburton profits!
 
2013-09-03 12:05:51 PM

Cinaed: The chance for a regional war exists?
No shiat.


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-09-03 12:08:12 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk

"You know the difference between you and me Barack?"

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

"What?"

3agelnetwork.com

"I make the sunglasses look good."
 
2013-09-03 12:08:54 PM
i41.tinypic.com

Had to make him look more evil.
Still think we need to stay the hell out of there.
 
2013-09-03 12:10:45 PM
These guys know the US military, for all its bluff and bluster is really incapable of doing much after the enemy goes tits up. Its why we couldnt stabilize Iraq until we basically paid both sides off, its why Afghanistan is worse now than at any other point and why ever 'war' we've been in since Korea has either been extremely limited so that win conditions would be met regardless of what happened or simply made things worse.

We go into Syria and then what? Organized resistance collapses in a week, we pat our selves on the back and toss up the Mission Accomplished sign and then watch as a decade of guerrilla warfare erodes are stature and prestige even more before we call it quitsies?

Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.
 
2013-09-03 12:10:58 PM
Could we please just invade ourselves this time and win hearts and minds by building bridges and schools?
I really don't feel like spending our blood and treasure on anyone else, right now.
 
2013-09-03 12:11:49 PM
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. But inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
 
2013-09-03 12:12:43 PM

spamdog: 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 th ...


Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Obviously the whole situation is a clusterf*ck, but picking a side and only telling one side of the story is dishonest and cowardly.
 
2013-09-03 12:12:51 PM

Subtle_Canary: its why Afghanistan is worse now than at any other point


This does not sound, you know, correct.

Subtle_Canary: are stature


Nor is this, for other reasons.
 
2013-09-03 12:13:35 PM
I feel like this could all be resolved with a few well-timed jokes about the size of Assad's penis.
 
2013-09-03 12:14:28 PM
Goodbye, Darling.
 
2013-09-03 12:14:30 PM

Headso: I_C_Weener: Probably those WMDs from Iraq

I don't think nonexistent weapons can actually do anything in the real world.


I guess those Kurds all dropped dead on their own volition then. If chemical weapons are WMDs now then they were WMDs then. You farking partisan hypocrites are hilarious. Every one of you would be shiatting yourselves if a Republican was talking about attacking another country.
 
2013-09-03 12:15:24 PM

CheatCommando: 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.


I think you are wrong. The chances of Russia intervening militarily in Syria are well above zero. After all, it's not like there hasn't been some precedent in the last 5 years of Russia sending military in to "aid" another country. Now of course, they will be extremely reluctant to engage ANY western military, but if the US is "entitled" to send military into a country that poses no immediate threat to the US or its allies, and which is not itself an ally of the US, then Russia certainly does as well. Especially if we act in spite of a complete lack of international consensus.

Russia has sold anti-aircraft systems, Helicopters, tanks, etc.
 
2013-09-03 12:15:28 PM

Headso: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:  Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out.  Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past.  So why start now?

The first sentence answers the question at the end, IMO he made that comment a year ago it's a more complicated situation on the ground now so to get out of attacking pass it on to congress and after they get off their vacations they can vote on it. The if they vote no it's on them and if they vote yes it's on them, politically it was a brilliant move.


No.  It's not brilliant.  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)
 
2013-09-03 12:17:16 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.


Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.
 
2013-09-03 12:18:04 PM

Subtle_Canary: Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.


I don't think Korea in 1950 was armed with technology substantially behind ours. In fact, they were a little ahead in some ways. (The Migs were a bit of a surprise.) North Vietnam, too, occasionally had some top-flight stuff, and the North Vietnamese were not like the tin-pot dictators we fought since - they really knew what they were doing.

So I'd really say we haven't fought a competent opponent since about 1973.

But part of it is that our morality has changed, starting around Vietnam. Being willing to level entire cities, by hand, if necessary, has not really been acceptable to the public's sensibilities for a long time, and looking back on historical partisan and insurgent situations that were successfully won by the occupier, the tactics used would be... ill-received today.
 
2013-09-03 12:19:36 PM
While chemical weapons are terrible and their use absolutely has to be punished to keep it from seeming acceptable, why exactly haven't we been public with our evidence of the chemical attack?

I would that that it would make people a lot more supportive of a war that we might get involved in, and possibly shame other nations into joining the cause. I could see why they'd be hesitant without seeing evidence given our recent history in the area.
 
rka
2013-09-03 12:23:15 PM

Infernalist: 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?


Yeah, because the rest of the world is just sitting on the fence waffling between following the US or Russia/China.

You know who would follow Russia/China? The same shiathole countries that have always followed Russia/China. The US acting as the world police isn't going to change that.

Hell, the world doesn't follow us NOW as they are so quick to point out day after day, so I'm not sure what going alone and bombing Syria is going to do for us in an effort to win hearts and minds over the likes of China and Russia. The US has been told time and time again that we aren't the world's leader. So maybe we should stop acting like we have some big crown to lose here.
 
2013-09-03 12:23:59 PM

NutWrench: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Odd then that he won't let the UN into the country to investigate. Sarin gas is a bit harder to make than your typical IED. Which is why the US has rejected the claim, from the same article you linked.

Doctors Without Borders seems to have no problems operating in Syria.
If you're serious about getting sarin samples from an unbiased source, just ask them.


That's also why the UN Weapons inspectors came in, looked around, took samples, and left...
 
2013-09-03 12:25:53 PM

vygramul: Subtle_Canary: Our military, like everyone elses is designed to fight itself. Its why we've fought nothing but tinpot 3rd world dictators since 1945 yet are boys are equipped and trained as if our biggest threat was bizarro USA. All these F22's super carriers SSBN's Abrams tanks and satellite directed weaponry and we still cant figure out how to fight a group of determined assholes with basic infantry skills and home turf advantage. The only winning move is not to play.

I don't think Korea in 1950 was armed with technology substantially behind ours. In fact, they were a little ahead in some ways. (The Migs were a bit of a surprise.) North Vietnam, too, occasionally had some top-flight stuff, and the North Vietnamese were not like the tin-pot dictators we fought since - they really knew what they were doing.

So I'd really say we haven't fought a competent opponent since about 1973.

But part of it is that our morality has changed, starting around Vietnam. Being willing to level entire cities, by hand, if necessary, has not really been acceptable to the public's sensibilities for a long time, and looking back on historical partisan and insurgent situations that were successfully won by the occupier, the tactics used would be... ill-received today.


When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

We spent most of the Vietnam war NOT fighting against the NVA and when we DID finally go against them we spent most of our time trying not to. The VC was mostly eliminated after Tet, but the NVA never met us on the field with their mechanized forces. They played a light infantry warfare game with us til we left, and then waged conventional war against the South in 74 once we were gone. I see your point though.
 
2013-09-03 12:25:58 PM
We can't hate the blue eyed guy!
 
2013-09-03 12:26:10 PM
In 1997 there was a movie "Wag The Dog" with Dustin Hoffman, it was a story about  a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer who join efforts to "fabricate" a war.
Why am I thinking of this movie now?
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/
 
2013-09-03 12:27:57 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: No.  It's not brilliant.  He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year.  And no.  Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act.  His ego will allow nothing less.  Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it?  You mark my words.  Even without approval he's gonna do something.  I mean?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances?  Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim.  Now THAT would be brilliant.   :-)


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
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