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.

(NBC News)   House Speaker John Boehner gives Obama the green light to start WWIII   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 579
    More: Scary, Boehner, Wwiii, Obama, House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, House Minority Leader  
•       •       •

12677 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 1:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 04:15:57 PM  
It looks like someone got a healthy campaign contribution.
 
2013-09-03 04:17:30 PM  

jso2897: jso2897: cman: jso2897: Isitoveryet: dmaestaz: I guess Obama is going for his second Nobel Peace Prize by bombing the shiat out of another country now...

what was the first country?

You know all this foolishness is very amusing - and Obama is a big boy, and can take can of himself - and if people want to say mean things about him, that's fine with me.
But people who are calling this crap "Obama's foreign policy" are either very, very young, or very stupid.
I'm 63 years old, and what we are seeing now is basically our foreign policy - the only one we've had as long as I've been alive.
Bluster about some shiat going on in some benighted shiathole. When some pretext occurs, bomb and invade said shiathole.
Then, keep troops and/or payoff money in place forever to keep perpetual powder keg from blowing. And just keep adding more and more to the list. Started with Truman and Korea, never stopped.
Maybe if y'all really, REALLY decide you don't like it, you could stop it - but the deluded self-image we took away from WWII still looms large in a lot of American minds.

This is an awesome post

That's what SHE said.

PS: Thanks, man! :D


I know I have sponsored you before. I don't recall how many times, though...
 
2013-09-03 04:17:44 PM  

cman: neversubmit: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: doubled99: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t


Why? getting nervous?

About what? What in history makes you believe that THIS time will be different?

Russia?

Okay, what about Russia? Why didn't WWIII start the last several times we invaded a country that Russia liked?

I'll let you know next time we invade a country where Russia is taking an active interest.

The last time we fought a country with active support from someone was Viet Nam, who was being supported by China, and you recall how that went.

From what I've read the US owners think we lost that war because the American people turned on the government...

...because it was an unjust war.

They always leave that part out


Don't kid yourself, they all are.
 
2013-09-03 04:18:33 PM  
Kit Fister:  I'll let you know next time we invade a country where Russia is taking an active interest.

I think Syria fits that description.
 
2013-09-03 04:21:24 PM  

fireclown: Isitoveryet: rka: Linux_Yes: if Obama can do surgical strikes with no american boots on the ground, they i support it.  if not, then no.  but to do nothing sends the wrong message to the world's terrorist/idiots.  hey, i can spray sarin and no one is going to do anything.


What if you can't stop the chemical weapons without boots on the ground?

Your position is that you don't support boots on the ground.

So you advocate doing nothing, therefore sending the wrong message.

If Chemical Weapons are worth stopping, then they are worth boots on the ground.

You don't get to half-ass these scenarios. You're either in or you're not.

/I'm not


I believe we are capable of delivering our message without putting a single boot in the ground.

I have long advocated the "puppy missile", a tomahawk cruise missile that would safely deliver an adorable basket of puppies to a given location.  It would put across the notion that we are wiling to spend a bunch of money and fire missiles, and can hit your front yard.  And puppies generally make people happier and less murder-y.


Pretty sure they would just murder the puppies.
 
2013-09-03 04:21:35 PM  

Isitoveryet: rka: Linux_Yes: if Obama can do surgical strikes with no american boots on the ground, they i support it.  if not, then no.  but to do nothing sends the wrong message to the world's terrorist/idiots.  hey, i can spray sarin and no one is going to do anything.


What if you can't stop the chemical weapons without boots on the ground?

Your position is that you don't support boots on the ground.

So you advocate doing nothing, therefore sending the wrong message.

If Chemical Weapons are worth stopping, then they are worth boots on the ground.

You don't get to half-ass these scenarios. You're either in or you're not.

/I'm not


I believe we are capable of delivering our message without putting a single boot in the ground.


Worked great for Clinton when he was bombing aspirin factories.
 
2013-09-03 04:22:01 PM  

jso2897: You know all this foolishness is very amusing - and Obama is a big boy, and can take can of himself - and if people want to say mean things about him, that's fine with me.
But people who are calling this crap "Obama's foreign policy" are either very, very young, or very stupid.
I'm 63 years old, and what we are seeing now is basically our foreign policy - the only one we've had as long as I've been alive.
Bluster about some shiat going on in some benighted shiathole. When some pretext occurs, bomb and invade said shiathole.
Then, keep troops and/or payoff money in place forever to keep perpetual powder keg from blowing. And just keep adding more and more to the list. Started with Truman and Korea, never stopped.
Maybe if y'all really, REALLY decide you don't like it, you could stop it - but the deluded self-image we took away from WWII still looms large in a lot of American minds.


63! who the hell taught you how to use a digital typewriter? (joke, sometimes it's best to point that out)
i can and do appreciate your experience and insight.
that said, hopefully, Syria specifically, would be a skirmish at most and the (bolded above) wouldn't happen in this case. at least that's not what i would support at this point or any point in the future.
 
2013-09-03 04:23:34 PM  

Nappy Imus: Interesting article about the motivations on going to war with Syria I came across. . .

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-01/guest-post-who-benefits-war -b etween-united-states-and-syria


That rational article makes complete sense and therefore has no business being posted on Fark!
 
2013-09-03 04:25:12 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Worked great for Clinton when he was bombing aspirin factories.


did that affect the birth rate of the country that the aspirin factory was located?
 
2013-09-03 04:26:24 PM  
Bombing Syria will not be good for anyone involved.    The US will lose money that we don't have and will have to borrow.  (watch the debt limit go up in Oct)

Americans may be killed in direct action or in a bombing (like Lebanon 1980's).

America has over extended itself.    And we will suffer the consequences.

And the ME will not change.

This is mindless foreign policy....
 
2013-09-03 04:28:46 PM  
I have to wonder, after the time that has elapsed concerning the CW, wouldn't Assad have dispersed them to make it harder to destroy them?  His conventional arms should be semi-dispersed, since they should be in action.  Now a days, with everything being mobile, I think it will take actual manned aircraft to accomplish anything.  We may hit fixed assets, like communications nodes, but command and control facilities should be bunkered, again calling for manned aircraft.  It's better if we just allow them to kill one another, the more the merrier.  It's a Shia/Sunni thing and they want each other's blood, let's just sit back and watch.  I watch on YouTube and that's entertainment!
 
2013-09-03 04:29:01 PM  
Nemo's Brother:  Worked great for Clinton when he was bombing aspirin factories.

Actually, it was part of the US humanitarian effort to rid the world of anti-malaria medicines and horse tranquilizers.
 
2013-09-03 04:33:26 PM  

darth_badger: I for one welcome our New World Order corporate banker overlords.


Yeah.

Right.

They're gonna put themselves in high profile places in the so-called grand neo-feudal corporato-theocracy so we can finally target and shoot the arrogant futhermuckers and attempt to rid the planet of their verminous ilk. Business plan my ass.

They bleed red, just like you and I do. They are not gods on Earth.
 
2013-09-03 04:33:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Kit Fister: cameroncrazy1984: doubled99: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t


Why? getting nervous?

About what? What in history makes you believe that THIS time will be different?

Russia?

Okay, what about Russia? Why didn't WWIII start the last several times we invaded a country that Russia liked?


Because it hasn't happened...yet...
 
2013-09-03 04:34:05 PM  

netcentric: Bombing Syria will not be good for anyone involved.    The US will lose money that we don't have and will have to borrow.  (watch the debt limit go up in Oct)


I don't agree with that
The ships are out there anyway. The payloads would be use in training exercises anyways, now they would be used againt legitimate targets.
 
2013-09-03 04:35:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: The only thing we can do is make things worse

^ This.


^ That
 
2013-09-03 04:35:41 PM  

netcentric: Bombing Syria will not be good for anyone involved.    The US will lose money that we don't have and will have to borrow.  (watch the debt limit go up in Oct)

Americans may be killed in direct action or in a bombing (like Lebanon 1980's).

America has over extended itself.    And we will suffer the consequences.

And the ME will not change.

This is mindless foreign policy....


And therefore business as usual...
 
2013-09-03 04:35:53 PM  

WippitGuud: netcentric: Bombing Syria will not be good for anyone involved.    The US will lose money that we don't have and will have to borrow.  (watch the debt limit go up in Oct)

I don't agree with that
The ships are out there anyway. The payloads would be use in training exercises anyways, now they would be used againt legitimate targets.


It'll just a live fire exercise.
 
2013-09-03 04:37:08 PM  
Could someone explain to me why this is important to the average US citizen?

Thanks
 
2013-09-03 04:39:18 PM  
Syria isn't going to trigger WWIII. Syria's primary allies are not interested in getting involved directly on any large scale.

The US doesn't have enough international support to trigger a world war. The US isn't even interested in another world war.
 
2013-09-03 04:39:55 PM  

freak7: Heliovdrake: So, just to get it right here, you do or do not support bombing Syria?

100% in favor of.


Not in favor of.
 
2013-09-03 04:42:22 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Could someone explain to me why this is important to the average US citizen?

Thanks


the average US citizen is concerned with Miley Cyrus right now
 
2013-09-03 04:43:26 PM  

mediablitz: We've found the ONE THING Republicans will agree with Obama on. Killing...


Boehner, anyway. This seems to break down a lot like the NSA thing did -- the power players are all in favor, but the junior congressmen who are out of the info loop think it stinks. It's a question of who's got the votes.
 
2013-09-03 04:43:48 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Could someone explain to me why this is important to the average US citizen?

Thanks


ya know, it's a global thing now, not so much isolationism going on with the U.S. anymore.

as far as importance, I suppose that would be based on an individual level.

I personally, don't want to sit by and watch as civilians are gassed blatantly and have the government behind the gassing get to go to work on monday, but that's just me.
 
2013-09-03 04:44:41 PM  
I'll be back.

/as in, I gotta go wring my brain out
//seriously I take a goddamn break from this friggin frathouse and when I stick my de-twisted kitty snoot back in there's been a ginormous sh*t explosion everywhere!?
 
2013-09-03 04:47:28 PM  
I'm shocked. I'd have thought the GOP would've done the "Wag The Dog, you're trying to distract us from a scandal" route. That, or Boner has agreed to get thrown under the bus in order to make Obama look bad when the GOP sabotages this.
 
2013-09-03 04:47:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random

I think you underestimate smart weapons. We're not sending B-52s into Laos, here.


Good point.  That tin roof's rusted.
 
2013-09-03 04:49:53 PM  

p the boiler: Just loving Free Republics response to anything related to this topic:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3061974/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062065/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062064/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062079/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062013/posts

They don't know which way is up right now


I got a newsflash for you Einstein. Neither do the idiots in the White House or Congress.
 
2013-09-03 04:51:58 PM  

Isitoveryet: Turbo Cojones: Could someone explain to me why this is important to the average US citizen?

Thanks

ya know, it's a global thing now, not so much isolationism going on with the U.S. anymore.

as far as importance, I suppose that would be based on an individual level.

I personally, don't want to sit by and watch as civilians are gassed blatantly and have the government behind the gassing get to go to work on monday, but that's just me.


So then what you just arbitrarily target "Syria" to make them pay for their transgressions by risking American lives and in the process killing a shiat-ton of civilians, wasting a ton of money and resources, which could just make matters worse? If your goal is to make those pay for using CW, single them out and force them to stand trial in a war crimes hearing. Gather intel on the locations of the CW and destroy them or expose them and force those caches to be destroyed.

What you advocate would be to waltz into Syria and start blowing shiat up and hopefully the guys you were blowing up were the ones responsible. If this happened on our soil, and a group gassed a neighborhood here, would the correct course of action be to start blowing up neighborhoods of people that could potentially be the perpetrators - or would we have an all-points bulletin search for those responsible and bring them to trial?
 
2013-09-03 04:53:04 PM  
 
2013-09-03 04:53:22 PM  

Cyberluddite: Sliding Carp: mediablitz: We've found the ONE THING Republicans will agree with Obama on. Killing...

Oh, they'll be against it as soon as the pictures of dead kids in rubble show up.

Depends on whether the kids are brown or not.  If not, it'll be a "horrible tragedy."  If so, it'll be "collateral damage" that, while regrettable, is a necessary component of bringing freedom to the ignorant savages.


You're assuming that the GOP (or any political party) has any convictions other than "what brings us power". The moment there's a civi casualty, the talking point will be "We voted for military action under the guise that these strikes would ONLY hit military. Obama lied to us or is inept!"
 
2013-09-03 04:53:32 PM  

Nappy Imus: Interesting article about the motivations on going to war with Syria I came across. . .

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-01/guest-post-who-benefits-war -b etween-united-states-and-syria


So the Saudis gave CW to idiot rebels knowing they would blow up in their faces making it look like it was an attack ON the rebels not a fumbled attack BY the rebels so the US would be forced to attack their enemy.

Sneaky bastards. What next? Attacking a US city in order to encourage the US to enter into two long wars with their other enemies in the region?  Oh wait...
 
2013-09-03 04:53:44 PM  

Kittypie070: darth_badger: I for one welcome our New World Order corporate banker overlords.

Yeah.

Right.

They're gonna put themselves in high profile places in the so-called grand neo-feudal corporato-theocracy so we can finally target and shoot the arrogant futhermuckers and attempt to rid the planet of their verminous ilk. Business plan my ass.

They bleed red, just like you and I do. They are not gods on Earth.


:)
 
2013-09-03 04:55:13 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Worked great for Clinton when he was bombing aspirin factories.


Until the guys that he pissed off because of it flew some planes into buildings that is.
 
2013-09-03 04:56:32 PM  

ManateeGag: soakitincider: obama is a piece of shiat

what insightful commentary. thank you for your well thought out argument.


Yes, that political science degree really paid off.
 
2013-09-03 04:58:01 PM  

zimbomba63: I have to wonder, after the time that has elapsed concerning the CW, wouldn't Assad have dispersed them to make it harder to destroy them?  His conventional arms should be semi-dispersed, since they should be in action.  Now a days, with everything being mobile, I think it will take actual manned aircraft to accomplish anything.  We may hit fixed assets, like communications nodes, but command and control facilities should be bunkered, again calling for manned aircraft.  It's better if we just allow them to kill one another, the more the merrier.  It's a Shia/Sunni thing and they want each other's blood, let's just sit back and watch.  I watch on YouTube and that's entertainment!


The latest version of Tomahawk is apparently able to be re-targeted in mid-flight.
 
2013-09-03 04:58:53 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: Isitoveryet: Turbo Cojones: Could someone explain to me why this is important to the average US citizen?

Thanks

ya know, it's a global thing now, not so much isolationism going on with the U.S. anymore.

as far as importance, I suppose that would be based on an individual level.

I personally, don't want to sit by and watch as civilians are gassed blatantly and have the government behind the gassing get to go to work on monday, but that's just me.

So then what you just arbitrarily target "Syria" to make them pay for their transgressions by risking American lives and in the process killing a shiat-ton of civilians, wasting a ton of money and resources, which could just make matters worse? If your goal is to make those pay for using CW, single them out and force them to stand trial in a war crimes hearing. Gather intel on the locations of the CW and destroy them or expose them and force those caches to be destroyed.

What you advocate would be to waltz into Syria and start blowing shiat up and hopefully the guys you were blowing up were the ones responsible. If this happened on our soil, and a group gassed a neighborhood here, would the correct course of action be to start blowing up neighborhoods of people that could potentially be the perpetrators - or would we have an all-points bulletin search for those responsible and bring them to trial?



i wrote my game plan up thread & it doesn't involve blindly launching into Syria.
I understand the concern since when has the U.S. managed some sort of constraint when using military force? that said, what you wrote isn't anything i would ever support.
 
2013-09-03 04:59:57 PM  

Rapmaster2000: paygun: Rapmaster2000: Assad gassed his OWN PEOPLE!  He is a friend of Iran, our nation's sworn enemy.  He is an Islamofascist coming to Islamofascisize us.

I stand with our COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF in the face of tyranny, while you coddle these criminals.

I'll pray for you.

This is fun and all but seriously I do hope Obama kills lots of brown people.  Hope and change.

I legitimately think that we'll consider them white people in 40 years.  The Persians will be first.  Then the Arabs.  The Turks are already there.


Yeah, but we sorta backslid with Latinos.  They don't get to be white anymore thanks to Zimmerman.
 
2013-09-03 05:05:20 PM  

freak7: If George Zimmerman gave his opinion on Syria while being interviewed in a Walmart parking lot, after buying the latest Miley Cyrus album, we could have the most epic thread in history.


No, no, the most epic thread in history would involve a lesbian twerking and someone quoted as saying "I could care less."
 
2013-09-03 05:06:11 PM  
Anyone ever wonder what an America boner might look like (it's really not, NSFW...but probably best if you didn't click at work):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a337/crazycracka420/america-boner_ zp s891a1e7f.gif
 
2013-09-03 05:06:16 PM  

Rapmaster2000: freak7: If George Zimmerman gave his opinion on Syria while being interviewed in a Walmart parking lot, after buying the latest Miley Cyrus album, we could have the most epic thread in history.

I heard that George Zimmerman is pro circumcision and public breastfeeding.


But how much should he tip his waitress?  She needs funds for her abortion.
 
2013-09-03 05:07:07 PM  

Isitoveryet: i wrote my game plan up thread & it doesn't involve blindly launching into Syria.
I understand the concern since when has the U.S. managed some sort of constraint when using military force? that said, what you wrote isn't anything i would ever support.


What you wrote is to destroy the CW caches and methods of delivery. The problem with this is target identification, collateral damage, and the fact that Syria has some sort of anti-aircraft capabilities that would need to be destroyed. You also said we notify the public before we strike our target. Do you not see the flaw in this plan? Do you really think that they would keep their CW in place if warned of an attack ahead of time in the area? What if these were stored in a public area? Your entire plan advocates destroying the weapons via bombing runs. It isn't that simple for one, to accomplish your plan and two you are naive if you think that destroying these assets is going to fix anything but ensure those weapons are not used against the populace.
 
2013-09-03 05:07:19 PM  

Cyberluddite: Weaver95: You know...if the GOP wants to kill people in the middle east then maybe we should air drop the first born of every member of congress into Syria with a full combat load out and let them sort it out for us.

Very special forces?


That was horrible. I'm not only ashamed that I laughed at that, but I'm ashamed I've never seen it.
 
2013-09-03 05:09:07 PM  

theflatline: Bush could of settled this years ago.  He could have made a a small part of the middle east a glass parking lot, and world order would have been restored.


so "could of" then "could have" ? poopSkull!
 
2013-09-03 05:11:14 PM  

p the boiler: Just loving Free Republics response to anything related to this topic:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3061974/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062065/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062064/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062079/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062013/posts

They don't know which way is up right now


I'm not proud of my schadenfreude here.  But I'll cop to it.  Anger and ignorance is an intoxicating mixture.
 
2013-09-03 05:11:37 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: Isitoveryet: i wrote my game plan up thread & it doesn't involve blindly launching into Syria.
I understand the concern since when has the U.S. managed some sort of constraint when using military force? that said, what you wrote isn't anything i would ever support.

What you wrote is to destroy the CW caches and methods of delivery. The problem with this is target identification, collateral damage, and the fact that Syria has some sort of anti-aircraft capabilities that would need to be destroyed. You also said we notify the public before we strike our target. Do you not see the flaw in this plan? Do you really think that they would keep their CW in place if warned of an attack ahead of time in the area? What if these were stored in a public area? Your entire plan advocates destroying the weapons via bombing runs. It isn't that simple for one, to accomplish your plan and two you are naive if you think that destroying these assets is going to fix anything but ensure those weapons are not used against the populace.


so i wasn't very explicit in my details but you have to admit it is a far different scenario that the one you painted.
this whole exercise would basically be a deterrent for govt's who think using gas on civilians is an acceptable practice.
 
2013-09-03 05:12:41 PM  

WippitGuud: The payloads would be use in training exercises anyways,


Nope. Tomahawk warshot shoots for training or even ship certification are rare. The same for torpedoes. There are specific exercise weapons for that and they are usually recoverable so we can use them again.
 
2013-09-03 05:14:56 PM  

Radioactive Ass: WippitGuud: The payloads would be use in training exercises anyways,

Nope. Tomahawk warshot shoots for training or even ship certification are rare. The same for torpedoes. There are specific exercise weapons for that and they are usually recoverable so we can use them again.


Doesn't the US periodically have live-fire exercises?
 
2013-09-03 05:17:54 PM  
Maybe this is why Obama wants to keep all the NSA spying. He's planning on doing things that will piss everyone off and lead to more attacks.
 
2013-09-03 05:18:04 PM  

jso2897: You know all this foolishness is very amusing - and Obama is a big boy, and can take can of himself - and if people want to say mean things about him, that's fine with me.
But people who are calling this crap "Obama's foreign policy" are either very, very young, or very stupid.
I'm 63 years old, and what we are seeing now is basically our foreign policy - the only one we've had as long as I've been alive.
Bluster about some shiat going on in some benighted shiathole. When some pretext occurs, bomb and invade said shiathole.
Then, keep troops and/or payoff money in place forever to keep perpetual powder keg from blowing. And just keep adding more and more to the list. Started with Truman and Korea, never stopped.
Maybe if y'all really, REALLY decide you don't like it, you could stop it - but the deluded self-image we took away from WWII still looms large in a lot of American minds.


The thing about your posts is that I'm never quite sure whether I completely agree with you, completely disagree, neither agree nor disagree, or both agree and disagree at the same time.  Mainly I'm left scratching my head and wondering.

That's really what I love about Fark: when I think someone MIGHT be wrong, but I'm not sure.
 
Displayed 50 of 579 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | 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