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 581
    More: Scary, Boehner, Wwiii, Obama, House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, House Minority Leader  
•       •       •

12656 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 1:07 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



581 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-03 11:54:40 AM
Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before
 
2013-09-03 11:55:34 AM
About time. I was beginning to think the GOP was going all nancy on us.
 
2013-09-03 11:59:37 AM
Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?
 
2013-09-03 12:01:20 PM
We've found the ONE THING Republicans will agree with Obama on. Killing...
 
2013-09-03 12:01:44 PM

nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before


He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.
 
2013-09-03 12:02:38 PM
Of all the times that Congress could choose not to be partisan hacks.....
 
2013-09-03 12:02:40 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 12:03:26 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?
 
2013-09-03 12:03:47 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


no, Obama's bombing someone, so it's WWIII and we're all going to be nuked!
 
2013-09-03 12:04:21 PM

BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.


Well, if you say you're going to do something then don't you do tend to lose credibility.  I wish I understood enough about the situation to have an opinion, I have no idea who or what to root for here, a Syria where children are NOT being killed is probably too much to ask for just yet, sadly.
 
2013-09-03 12:04:29 PM
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.
 
2013-09-03 12:05:38 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 12:09:47 PM

BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.


I guess Obama's back to being an egomaniacle mastermind determined to destroy the planet.

When's he go back to being a stuffed suit puppet?
 
2013-09-03 12:09:51 PM

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?
 
2013-09-03 12:10:59 PM

nekom: BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.

Well, if you say you're going to do something then don't you do tend to lose credibility.  I wish I understood enough about the situation to have an opinion, I have no idea who or what to root for here, a Syria where children are NOT being killed is probably too much to ask for just yet, sadly.


This

Pretty much we're farked no matter what we do on it
 
2013-09-03 12:12:29 PM
Boehner couldn't deliver his own party on a farm bill. His word ain't shiat, and he's incompetent.
 
2013-09-03 12:15:11 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


Given Russia's aggressive posturing over the whole thing, the Israel angle, the numerous other conflicts that are ongoing in the region, this is not exactly a far-fetched possibility.  It's not nearly as "simple" as Iraq was as far as geopolitical alignments are involved.

That said, WWIII this is unlikely to become.  I think it would be more likely to happen if AQ got their hands on a large amount of chemical weapons as we'd see their attacks become a lot more devastating and see a much worse response from the first world.
 
2013-09-03 12:19:41 PM

BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.


You really have no control over yourself, do you?
 
2013-09-03 12:21:44 PM

nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before


Why is it stupid to say the way he'll vote? There's no connection between his beliefs on the matter and whether or not the thing will pass.
 
2013-09-03 12:24:16 PM

DamnYankees: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

Why is it stupid to say the way he'll vote? There's no connection between his beliefs on the matter and whether or not the thing will pass.


Well, doesn't it make him look impotent?  If he doesn't have the votes, I wouldn't think he'd have said that, but I could be wrong.  I'm just a spectator in all this, I have no idea if bombing them is a good idea or not.
 
2013-09-03 12:24:50 PM
Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!
 
2013-09-03 12:25:10 PM

cman: nekom: BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.

Well, if you say you're going to do something then don't you do tend to lose credibility.  I wish I understood enough about the situation to have an opinion, I have no idea who or what to root for here, a Syria where children are NOT being killed is probably too much to ask for just yet, sadly.

This

Pretty much we're farked no matter what we do on it


So our solution to ending senseless killing is to...kill a bunch of people at random and hope that the heartless sons of biatches who have no souls running the syrian government are what...Gonna suddenly start behaving themselves?

The only thing we can do is make things worse.
 
2013-09-03 12:25:57 PM

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.


Oh jeebus christ!!

Really?! You're putting this at the feet of the Republicans? The Democrat President says that he wants to do and that he's going to do it either way and somehow this is a Republican's war?!

The only way I would support this is if the President said he was going to do this either way, which I think he has. But I still believe that politics end at the water's edge. The President is going to do this. Either he can do this with Congress's blessing or without it. For the good of the nation I think we need to go to war with a whole and intact effort.
 
2013-09-03 12:26:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!


Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.
 
2013-09-03 12:26:32 PM

Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random


I think you underestimate smart weapons. We're not sending B-52s into Laos, here.
 
2013-09-03 12:27:16 PM

Weaver95: So our solution to ending senseless killing is to...kill a bunch of people at random and hope that the heartless sons of biatches who have no souls running the syrian government are what...Gonna suddenly start behaving themselves?


I have this slim hope that they have delayed because they have a good plan for nailing the chemical weapons without causeing much bloodshed.

SLIM hope.
 
2013-09-03 12:27:42 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.


Who? Syria? You kiddin me? You think Russia's gonna try something?
 
2013-09-03 12:28:44 PM

nekom: Well, doesn't it make him look impotent?


I don't think so, but I don't really like these kinds of meta-questions anyways. Do you think it makes him weak? I don't - I believe in many things that would never pass the House, even if it was full of liberals like me. Doesn't make me weak, so why would that make him weak?
 
2013-09-03 12:28:45 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.

Oh jeebus christ!!

Really?! You're putting this at the feet of the Republicans? The Democrat President says that he wants to do and that he's going to do it either way and somehow this is a Republican's war?!

The only way I would support this is if the President said he was going to do this either way, which I think he has. But I still believe that politics end at the water's edge. The President is going to do this. Either he can do this with Congress's blessing or without it. For the good of the nation I think we need to go to war with a whole and intact effort.


Well the article DOES talk about the GOP so...yeah, I guess it's fair to call them out on this issue.
 
2013-09-03 12:29:34 PM

Weaver95: So our solution to ending senseless killing is to...kill a bunch of people at random and hope that the heartless sons of biatches who have no souls running the syrian government are what...Gonna suddenly start behaving themselves?

The only thing we can do is make things worse.


Yep, this pretty much sums up the situation.  And Obama's "strategy," if you can call it that, doesn't really seem any more sophisticated than that.  Just once I'd like to hear a clear explanation of what they think they can accomplish by this, or any reasoning that boils down to anything other than "Well, we gotta do something! I mean, Assad crossed that red line, or at least we're pretty sure that Assad was the one responsible anyway."
 
2013-09-03 12:30:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.

Who? Syria? You kiddin me? You think Russia's gonna try something?


I'd rather not find out. We already lost the twin towers and a good bit of the 4th and 5th amendments...what else has to go boom here at home before people realize action have consequences?
 
2013-09-03 12:31:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I think you underestimate smart weapons. We're not sending B-52s into Laos, here.


Yeah, they've worked so will in Iraq.  No dead kids, no weddings blown up, nothing bad at all.  They're completely foolproof.
 
2013-09-03 12:32:26 PM

DamnYankees: nekom: Well, doesn't it make him look impotent?

I don't think so, but I don't really like these kinds of meta-questions anyways. Do you think it makes him weak? I don't - I believe in many things that would never pass the House, even if it was full of liberals like me. Doesn't make me weak, so why would that make him weak?


Well, isn't his job kind of to get his party to fall in line?  If he can't do that, maybe they need someone who can.  Not that I really blame him mind you, he's got a damned near impossible job, but I would think he wouldn't want to say something like that unless he DID have the votes.  Which if true means I guess we're hitting Syria soon.  I could be wrong, just what I'm reading into it
 
2013-09-03 12:32:58 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.


Smart weapons didn't get saddam. That came down to good old fashioned boots on the ground foot work. I very much doubt our booming runs would slow down the killing and violence in Syria. We are just going to make things worse.
 
2013-09-03 12:33:25 PM

nekom: Well, isn't his job kind of to get his party to fall in line?


Not on this. This is Obama's thing. I think in this situation Boehner is basically just like any other Congressman, he has no special obligations other than letting it come to the floor.
 
2013-09-03 12:33:40 PM

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


^ This.
 
2013-09-03 12:36:14 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random

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

Smart weapons didn't get saddam. That came down to good old fashioned boots on the ground foot work. I very much doubt our booming runs would slow down the killing and violence in Syria. We are just going to make things worse.


Bombing runs, stupid iPad autocorrect!
 
2013-09-03 12:38:11 PM

Weaver95: Well the article DOES talk about the GOP so...yeah, I guess it's fair to call them out on this issue.


Well the article calls out Democrats as well, but no mention of this being a Democrats' war?

Per normal the Republicans can't get their shiat together and the Democrats are going to get their way, much to the detriment of the American people.
 
2013-09-03 12:38:19 PM
I just can't see any way where bombing Syria works out well for anyone.
 
2013-09-03 12:40:13 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Well the article DOES talk about the GOP so...yeah, I guess it's fair to call them out on this issue.

Well the article calls out Democrats as well, but no mention of this being a Democrats' war?

Per normal the Republicans can't get their shiat together and the Democrats are going to get their way, much to the detriment of the American people.


Um...you do realize the GOP wants this war, right? Looks like both parties want to keep blowing shiat up. So here we are, bipartisan cooperation at last. Ain't we lucky?
 
2013-09-03 12:43:20 PM

Weaver95: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Well the article DOES talk about the GOP so...yeah, I guess it's fair to call them out on this issue.

Well the article calls out Democrats as well, but no mention of this being a Democrats' war?

Per normal the Republicans can't get their shiat together and the Democrats are going to get their way, much to the detriment of the American people.

Um...you do realize the GOP wants this war, right? Looks like both parties want to keep blowing shiat up. So here we are, bipartisan cooperation at last. Ain't we lucky?


BSBSVR
 
2013-09-03 12:47:29 PM

Weaver95: I just can't see any way where bombing Syria works out well for anyone.


Perhaps it will serve as a deterrent for further use of chemical weapons?  Perhaps destroying chemical weapons stockpiles are the objective?  I'm not sold either, but I'm wide open to ideas.  As a father, the photos and video I've seen out of the area are OBSCENE.  But that alone isn't necessarily the best reason to get your war on.  I hope somehow it gets better there, but that's just wishful thinking on my part.  I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make these kinds of decisions, and I hope Obama has "studied this out" properly.

Of course the list of potential downsides to using military force there is fairly obvious, especially if this would regional war theory pans out.  Worst case scenario Israel and Iran get involved in this and it's a category 5 shiatstorm.
 
2013-09-03 12:50:25 PM

nekom: Weaver95: I just can't see any way where bombing Syria works out well for anyone.

Perhaps it will serve as a deterrent for further use of chemical weapons?  Perhaps destroying chemical weapons stockpiles are the objective?  I'm not sold either, but I'm wide open to ideas.  As a father, the photos and video I've seen out of the area are OBSCENE.  But that alone isn't necessarily the best reason to get your war on.  I hope somehow it gets better there, but that's just wishful thinking on my part.  I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make these kinds of decisions, and I hope Obama has "studied this out" properly.

Of course the list of potential downsides to using military force there is fairly obvious, especially if this would regional war theory pans out.  Worst case scenario Israel and Iran get involved in this and it's a category 5 shiatstorm.


Even if by some miracle we hit a high value target...the killing will STILL continue.
 
2013-09-03 12:52:10 PM

nekom: Perhaps it will serve as a deterrent for further use of chemical weapons?


OOOOO I love playing Devil's Advocate!

Death penalty does not act as a deterrent because murderers gonna murder.

/Its not that I believe that statement.
//As I said, Devil's Advocate
 
2013-09-03 12:53:17 PM
Oh please... if the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor didn't start WWIII, this certainly won't.
 
2013-09-03 12:53:45 PM

Weaver95: Um...you do realize the GOP wants this war, right? Looks like both parties want to keep blowing shiat up. So here we are, bipartisan cooperation at last. Ain't we lucky?


And you know the GOP wants this war because? Did you get the memo that I missed? Or is this just "well of course the GOP wants a war"?

Quick quiz who was the POTUS for World War I? WW2? Vietnam? Koren War? When you want a really big nasty war you got to vote Democrat.
 
2013-09-03 12:55:43 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Um...you do realize the GOP wants this war, right? Looks like both parties want to keep blowing shiat up. So here we are, bipartisan cooperation at last. Ain't we lucky?

And you know the GOP wants this war because? Did you get the memo that I missed? Or is this just "well of course the GOP wants a war"?

Quick quiz who was the POTUS for World War I? WW2? Vietnam? Koren War? When you want a really big nasty war you got to vote Democrat.


Um...did you even bother to read the article...?
 
2013-09-03 01:02:39 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.

Who? Syria? You kiddin me? You think Russia's gonna try something?

I'd rather not find out. We already lost the twin towers and a good bit of the 4th and 5th amendments...what else has to go boom here at home before people realize action have consequences?


Give me a break with that crap, Weav. You know better.
 
2013-09-03 01:02:40 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

 
2013-09-03 01:03:53 PM

BravadoGT: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?


Syria and Israel have fought several wars since Syria became a Soviet/Russian client, and each time resulted in Israeli aircraft doing victory loops around Damascus. Russia ain't done dick in any of them. The real question is what makes you think that THIS TIME it'll be different?
 
2013-09-03 01:04:16 PM

R.A.Danny: Of all the times that Congress could choose not to be partisan hacks.....


Of there's one thing you can count on our GOP Congress to do, it's let us all down time and time again.
 
2013-09-03 01:04:25 PM

Weaver95: Um...did you even bother to read the article...?


yes. Did you?

Boehner says he supports the President. Then it goes on to say how he is going to have to sell it to his fellow republicans who are against it. The reason I ask you if you read it is because you are under the misguided assumption that the GOP wants this war. Where did you get this information? Right now there are more GOP voices decrying military action then are cheer-leading the President.

Let me take a wild guess, you can see into their hearts and know they really really want to bomb Syria?
 
2013-09-03 01:04:46 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random

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

Smart weapons didn't get saddam. That came down to good old fashioned boots on the ground foot work. I very much doubt our booming runs would slow down the killing and violence in Syria. We are just going to make things worse.


To be fair, by the time we got around to finding Saddam it was just icing on a the cake, a nice a PR moment, but the Iraqi regime had been so thoroughly demolished that even if we'd never found him, he'd never have been relevant again.  We could have saved a ton of money in Iraq if we'd just hit it from above and through missile strikes, destroyed the military targets and infrastructure, and driven the Hussein family into hiding, and then let the Iraqis rebuild on their own.
 
2013-09-03 01:05:14 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.


Eventually? Maybe so. But I would say that we're at a post-WWII minimum of likelihood.
 
2013-09-03 01:07:25 PM

vygramul: BravadoGT: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?

Syria and Israel have fought several wars since Syria became a Soviet/Russian client, and each time resulted in Israeli aircraft doing victory loops around Damascus. Russia ain't done dick in any of them. The real question is what makes you think that THIS TIME it'll be different?


Russia knows that if they start messing with Israel they'll face a lot of trouble from us, and it isn't worth it.  Russia is driven by money these days, same as China, ideology takes a back seat to profit, and they know that if it comes down to it doing anything that risks direct military conflict with the US is very bad for their future earnings prospects.
 
2013-09-03 01:07:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.

Who? Syria? You kiddin me? You think Russia's gonna try something?

I'd rather not find out. We already lost the twin towers and a good bit of the 4th and 5th amendments...what else has to go boom here at home before people realize action have consequences?

Give me a break with that crap, Weav. You know better.


I know that if we keep bombing the middle east then eventually things will blow up here at home.
 
2013-09-03 01:09:55 PM
Hey, bone head. You are the speaker of the house.
Not anyone important.
Shaddup and sit down, you farktwit.

Farking racist, sexist asshole.
 
2013-09-03 01:09:55 PM
Yeah! Let's go Warbama!!! Where is your socialist peace god now,!?!?
 
2013-09-03 01:10:05 PM
Sorry hippies, you're on the wrong side of history again. Tom Cruise missiles engage!
 
2013-09-03 01:10:43 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Um...did you even bother to read the article...?

yes. Did you?

Boehner says he supports the President. Then it goes on to say how he is going to have to sell it to his fellow republicans who are against it. The reason I ask you if you read it is because you are under the misguided assumption that the GOP wants this war. Where did you get this information? Right now there are more GOP voices decrying military action then are cheer-leading the President.

Let me take a wild guess, you can see into their hearts and know they really really want to bomb Syria?


So when the GOP leadership says they stand for something...like say bombing Syria...that doesn't mean the GOP is in favor of said action? If the GOP leadership isn't actually running the republican party than who is? I'd really like to know!
 
2013-09-03 01:11:17 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.

Who? Syria? You kiddin me? You think Russia's gonna try something?

I'd rather not find out. We already lost the twin towers and a good bit of the 4th and 5th amendments...what else has to go boom here at home before people realize action have consequences?

Give me a break with that crap, Weav. You know better.

I know that if we keep bombing the middle east then eventually things will blow up here at home.


Those who do not believe that actions have consequences are those who got us in the economic disaster. Those who do not believe that every action has a reaction don't even believe in a scientific fact.

You are dealing with a closed mind, Weav. Cameron will never admit he is wrong.
 
2013-09-03 01:12:01 PM

vygramul: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


Glass Parking Lot??

rense.com
 
2013-09-03 01:12:34 PM
img32.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-03 01:13:10 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-03 01:15:01 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-09-03 01:15:21 PM
www.funkmysoul.gr
 
2013-09-03 01:15:34 PM
with Obama now having the boehner and the cantor attitude to strike that ASSad, I'm now 99.999% sure it will happen now.

Ironic thing is most folks voted for Obama to stop wars not creating new ones.
 
2013-09-03 01:15:54 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


Agreed.  WWIII happened in 1991.
 
2013-09-03 01:16:23 PM
What are they thinking? They're thinking that it's running out. It's running out... and ninety percent of what's left is in the Middle East. This is a fight to the death.
 
2013-09-03 01:16:36 PM
This isn't WWIII.  WWIII doesn't start until July 14th, 2014 in the aftermath of the US winning the World Cup Final.
 
2013-09-03 01:16:43 PM
In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
 
2013-09-03 01:17:20 PM

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


..unless it's a drone strike that doesn't catch front page news. Then, he's a tyrant.
 
2013-09-03 01:17:22 PM

BravadoGT: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?


And what if Assad magically appears in the Oval Office and sits down at the Resolute Desk?  Does he automatically become President, and does Obama become President of Syria?
 
2013-09-03 01:17:24 PM

SuperNinjaToad: Ironic thing is most folks voted for Obama to stop wars not creating new ones.



It's only ironic if you were dumb enough to believe him.
 
2013-09-03 01:17:24 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


^^^This.  This is more like the time we fought USSR in Afganistan and ended up arming a religious terrorist regime ang got a Rambo movie.
 
2013-09-03 01:17:41 PM
Obviously the lizard men and the crab people are the ones who want this war in the first place.
 
2013-09-03 01:17:44 PM

freak7: Sorry hippies, you're on the wrong side of history again. Tom Cruise missiles engage!



So, just to get it right here, you do or do not support bombing Syria?
 
2013-09-03 01:17:49 PM
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.
 
2013-09-03 01:17:53 PM
Take paradise, nuke up a parking lot...

/got nothin'
 
2013-09-03 01:18:01 PM
How can they all be this fargin' stupid?
 
2013-09-03 01:18:09 PM

uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam


Yay Team!
 
2013-09-03 01:18:15 PM
So since Republican House Speaker John Boehner is siding with Obama on this one, does this mean we can add him to the "list of people who are conspiring against the GOP and therefore America?"
 
2013-09-03 01:18:42 PM
Both sides are bad.

So, bomb Syria.
 
2013-09-03 01:18:56 PM
Weird, democrats screaming for war and republicans screaming for peace.
How about instead of killing Syrians we kill politicians instead?
 
2013-09-03 01:19:01 PM
img28.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-03 01:19:06 PM

uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY
 
2013-09-03 01:19:09 PM
latimesblogs.latimes.com

GIS for 'hot syrian women'. *shrugs*
 
2013-09-03 01:19:56 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
HOOORAY BIPARTISANSHIP!
 
2013-09-03 01:20:01 PM

JusticeandIndependence: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Civil War
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

Yay Team!


You left one off the Republican ledger. Well, at least one.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:12 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.


Bomb us?  All they need to do is accept currencies other than the US dollar for oil.  Dump their Treasuries.  Whatever.  They could destroy us without firing a shot.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:24 PM
You will not get WWIII.  The apocalypse will not happen in your lifetime.  Your death will be a whimper and not a bang.  Deal with it.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:26 PM

ChipNASA: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 520x378]


The British almost did. Other than that you've found a uniquely historic way to miss the point.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:31 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Weird, democrats screaming for war and republicans screaming for peace.
How about instead of killing Syrians we kill politicians instead?


You're trying to argue that Republicans are pushing for "peace" in the thread about Boehner approving?
 
2013-09-03 01:20:41 PM
God damn it. Now I'm agreeing with Pelosi.
"I believe the American people need to hear more about the intelligence that supports this action,"

Good thing I have the day off, because only heavy drinking can let me recover from agreeing with the Female Skeletor.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:47 PM

Cletus C.: JusticeandIndependence: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Civil War
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

Yay Team!

You left one off the Republican ledger. Well, at least one.


Oh, last 100 years. Nevermind.
 
2013-09-03 01:20:49 PM

cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY


Thanks.  Now if someone could put casualties on there. I have more finger than casualties in Panama and Grenada.
 
2013-09-03 01:21:03 PM

Cletus C.: JusticeandIndependence: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Civil War
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

Yay Team!

You left one off the Republican ledger. Well, at least one.


The Civil War happened in the last 100 years??
 
2013-09-03 01:21:34 PM
It's all so sudden, it's like it came out of nowhere.

Tony Blair write in his memoir, 'A Journey,' that former Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to remake the Middle East after 9/11, and invade not only Iraq, but Iran and Syria as well. September 5, 2010

Dick was always absolutely hard-line on these things," Blair said. "I mean, I think he would openly avow this."

In his book, Blair writes Cheney wanted to deliver a message to nations he felt were supporting terrorists and terror organizations.


"He was for hard, hard power," he wrote. "No ifs, no buts, no maybes. We're coming after you so change or be changed."
 
2013-09-03 01:21:39 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: How can they all be this fargin' stupid?


Got me.
 
2013-09-03 01:22:35 PM
I for one welcome our New World Order corporate banker overlords.
 
2013-09-03 01:23:02 PM
Well I'll wait until Congress comes back in session before I decide to panic but the case for war seems to be better this week and who knows it might be better once the UN comes back with its results. That being said it is interesting that France has decided it will do nothing if the US decides not to intervene. Too bad that would of been interesting, but Syria isn't small potato shiat like that stuff in Africa. Though some farkers were trying to suggest that France was the shiat, and didn't need nobody.
 
2013-09-03 01:23:08 PM

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


Ladies and Gentlemen, Full Retard has been engaged.
 
2013-09-03 01:23:31 PM
If we want to pull these stunts as a nation to make Syria sweat a bit, fine. But lets not actually do anything eh? We can't afford it, and we can't effectively change the region unless you want to create a glass parking lot.

fark with them, fine, actually bomb them, no.

And here I voted for this guy thinking he wouldn't pull this kind of crap...
 
2013-09-03 01:23:48 PM
 
2013-09-03 01:23:57 PM

Elandriel: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

Given Russia's aggressive posturing over the whole thing, the Israel angle, the numerous other conflicts that are ongoing in the region, this is not exactly a far-fetched possibility.  It's not nearly as "simple" as Iraq was as far as geopolitical alignments are involved.

That said, WWIII this is unlikely to become.  I think it would be more likely to happen if AQ got their hands on a large amount of chemical weapons as we'd see their attacks become a lot more devastating and see a much worse response from the first world.

If the Syrian government falls they will, with the help from us.
 
2013-09-03 01:24:00 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-03 01:24:13 PM

uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Panama
Grenada

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
*

FTFY
Note: 1955 President Eisenhower sent the first military advisers to South Vietnam to train the ARVN.

Never mind that all the Republican wars were fights we picked against pip-squeaks, and had no real important value to the American people. This is what validates my thinking that bullies are also pretty stupid - and usually end up being conservatives.
 
2013-09-03 01:24:17 PM
www.washingtonsblog.com


Same war monger, different decade.
 
2013-09-03 01:24:19 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


This. We're talking about a Clinton vs. Iraq missile attack, and nothing more. Syria's talking noise about taking things regional, but they can barely handle the fight they're in the middle of now. They're dropping land mines from helicopters, because they're run out of real weapons.
 
2013-09-03 01:24:54 PM

cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY



I think the LAPD's hunt for Dorner involved more firepower than Grenada and Panama combined.

Also, if you're going to count Iraq as Parts 1 and 2, then you have to count Yugoslavia as two -- "Bosnia" and "Kosovo."
 
2013-09-03 01:25:38 PM
Actually, Obama punting to Congress should mean a good 5 or 6 months before the US acts. Maybe the situation will have changed by then.
 
2013-09-03 01:25:42 PM

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


Obama: I want to bomb the crap out of Syria
GOP: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.
Obama: But they used chemical weapons!
GOP: Yeah, but we really hate you!
Obama: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!
GOP: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.
Obama: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!
GOP:   Ohhhhh.  Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-03 01:25:45 PM
Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

/would rather not be involved
 
2013-09-03 01:25:48 PM
We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?
www.theblaze.com
 
2013-09-03 01:25:53 PM

Weaver95: So when the GOP leadership says they stand for something...like say bombing Syria...that doesn't mean the GOP is in favor of said action? If the GOP leadership isn't actually running the republican party than who is? I'd really like to know!


This may be confusing but the GOP doesn't walk lock step behind the leadership. I would love for Boehner to find a way to shut this down. But frankly I don't think he has the intelligence or the will to thwart the Democrats. The Democrats will get the war they want. I really dont want to believe that anyone wants to start a war, but the President is making it very difficult to argue otherwise.

They have a tall order trying to convince the rank and file in the GOP that this is a good idea. I really hope they don't. Best case in my eyes is we stay the hell out of there. But I think the President is going to go no matter what. He all but said it in this speech in the Rose Garden.
 
2013-09-03 01:26:31 PM

uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam


We could break that down by "conservative vs. liberal" and I think they'd mostly come down on one side.
 
2013-09-03 01:26:50 PM
I said this in the last Syria thread, but I'm so annoyed by this drumbeat of inevitability that I'm going to re-post.

Turn whatever evidence you have over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them.

Meanwhile, use all of our fancy stealth tech to carpet-bomb Syria, regime & rebel areas alike, with medical supplies & food. Make like Syria's borders don't even exist. If you really must blow something up, target aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. Cap it off by throwing a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps.

Completely disregarding Syria's sovereignty make Assad look powerless, while any kind of military strike he survives will just make him look stronger.It's a clear answer, which should save face re: Obama's "red line", and such an approach should sail through congress. If the UN and Arab States want to biatch about 'unilateral action' or colonialism, let them; it'll come off as completely ridiculous. And hell, in the end, we might actually help a kid or two.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response?
 
2013-09-03 01:27:06 PM

DubtodaIll: This isn't WWIII.  WWIII doesn't start until July 14th, 2014 in the aftermath of the US winning the World Cup Final.


Oh yeah, they would light the world on fire!!
 
2013-09-03 01:27:25 PM
i.dawn.com
Shocking.
 
2013-09-03 01:27:43 PM
Obama got himself in way over his head with his "red line", then went to the UN and Congress hoping they'd give him a face-saving out.

Looks like the Republicans are just tossing the ball back in his court.

If we're going to go after people who poison children, I think we should start with Bayer, Dow and Monsanto. If it's corrupt regimes we're after, we should bomb Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans.
 
2013-09-03 01:27:45 PM

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

^ This.


Yep this.

/Anyone backing Obama on this should be ashamed.
 
2013-09-03 01:27:50 PM
So when AQ gets their hands on some Sarin after we collapse Assad,  and they kill several thousand americans with it, can we try Odumbo for war crimes and genocide?  Because then he'd have the Big Jackass Double then. Nobel Peace Prize and the McHitler with cheese.
 
2013-09-03 01:27:50 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!


A side track, but for what it's worth, The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a cautionary tale to both children, advocating not making light of grevious situations, and to parents, advocating taking a serious threat seriously, even if past actions suggest that the seriouness may be overplayed, or even non-existant.

It's the reason why first responders will always take a bomb threat seriously, even if the facility/location/caller has a history of making false claims.

So, being wrong on threat of WMD trageting Americans or our allies in Iraq does not mean we should ignore the potential future threat of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons being used against the US or its Allies.

Carry on.
 
2013-09-03 01:28:00 PM

Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?


I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?
 
2013-09-03 01:28:47 PM

wxboy: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

We could break that down by "conservative vs. liberal" and I think they'd mostly come down on one side.


All on the liberal side

/Bush was one of the most liberal POTUS's in history
 
2013-09-03 01:29:36 PM

Deep Contact: How'd you like the shrimp?


www.foodrepublic.com
 
2013-09-03 01:29:41 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: So when the GOP leadership says they stand for something...like say bombing Syria...that doesn't mean the GOP is in favor of said action? If the GOP leadership isn't actually running the republican party than who is? I'd really like to know!

This may be confusing but the GOP doesn't walk lock step behind the leadership. I would love for Boehner to find a way to shut this down. But frankly I don't think he has the intelligence or the will to thwart the Democrats. The Democrats will get the war they want. I really dont want to believe that anyone wants to start a war, but the President is making it very difficult to argue otherwise.

They have a tall order trying to convince the rank and file in the GOP that this is a good idea. I really hope they don't. Best case in my eyes is we stay the hell out of there. But I think the President is going to go no matter what. He all but said it in this speech in the Rose Garden.


The GOP isn't in lockstep?! Which GOP are you talking about anyways because the republicans in THIS country are in ideological lockstep every bit of the way and on every issue. If you don't follow orders you get fired. Period.
 
2013-09-03 01:29:44 PM

uber humper: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada (No congressional approval)
Panama
Libya '86 (No congressional approval)
Lebanon

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia
Libya '11 (No congressional approval)


FTFY

Thanks.  Now if someone could put casualties on there. I have more finger than casualties in Panama and Grenada.

 
2013-09-03 01:30:19 PM
Obama sucks at this.  Where are the Rape Rooms?  The Mobile Bio Weapons Labs?  The yellowcake?  The poor, oppressed Syrian people that we supposedly give a rat's ass about?    Dick Cheney would have lit that place on fire by now.

This incompetent empty-suit can't even get Republicans to support a war.  WTF is this guy's problem?
 
2013-09-03 01:30:25 PM

indarwinsshadow: [www.washingtonsblog.com image 850x1020]


Same war monger, different decade.


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-09-03 01:30:28 PM

Weaver95: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Well the article DOES talk about the GOP so...yeah, I guess it's fair to call them out on this issue.

Well the article calls out Democrats as well, but no mention of this being a Democrats' war?

Per normal the Republicans can't get their shiat together and the Democrats are going to get their way, much to the detriment of the American people.

Um...you do realize the GOP wants this war, right? Looks like both parties want to keep blowing shiat up. So here we are, bipartisan cooperation at last. Ain't we lucky?


I gotta believe that the thought that Iran might get pulled in has got some folks really rooting to bomb the shiat out of Syria.  I can hear that old hit song playing in the halls of Congress right now:  bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
 
2013-09-03 01:30:48 PM
Duh! This War-Boner isn't going to suck itself.
 
2013-09-03 01:30:50 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


why, is it not a legitimate fear?
 
2013-09-03 01:31:18 PM

cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY


"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...
 
2013-09-03 01:31:20 PM
If only we'd put this much thought into Dubya's motivations regarding Iraq before sending so many of our young men and women to die there.
 
2013-09-03 01:31:33 PM

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

Obama: I want to bomb the crap out of Syria
GOP: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.
Obama: But they used chemical weapons!
GOP: Yeah, but we really hate you!
Obama: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!
GOP: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.
Obama: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!
GOP:   Ohhhhh.  Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 375x325]


An odd thing to post in a story about the Republican speaker supporting Obama.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:13 PM

Kit Fister: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

why, is it not a legitimate fear?


No.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:17 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: So when AQ gets their hands on some Sarin after we collapse Assad,  and they kill several thousand americans with it, can we try Odumbo for war crimes and genocide?  Because then he'd have the Big Jackass Double then. Nobel Peace Prize and the McHitler with cheese.



I know this is unusual but I'm giving you a field promotion from Lt. C. Weasel to
General Whaarrgharble.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:20 PM
TheNewJesus:

And here I voted for this guy thinking he wouldn't pull this kind of crap...

I about spit when I heard my mother (her being a huge lib) call him bush jr.  It's kinda sad when you see so many people 'lose their faith.'
/i'm not there yet, but am getting there.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:35 PM

Kyosuke: If only we'd put this much thought into Dubya's motivations regarding Iraq before sending so many of our young men and women to die there.


We put a lot more thought into that. Then Congress voted to let the war birds fly.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:39 PM

groppet: Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

/would rather not be involved


It seems that attacking chemical weapons stockpiles would mean having to use airplanes rather than cruise missiles. You'd need a big bomb to crack a presumably fortified plant, followed by napalm to incinerate the chemical weapons. To use aircraft might mean softening up Syria's anti-aircraft capabilities.
 
2013-09-03 01:32:56 PM

Elandriel: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

Given Russia's aggressive posturing over the whole thing, the Israel angle, the numerous other conflicts that are ongoing in the region, this is not exactly a far-fetched possibility.  It's not nearly as "simple" as Iraq was as far as geopolitical alignments are involved.

That said, WWIII this is unlikely to become.  I think it would be more likely to happen if AQ got their hands on a large amount of chemical weapons as we'd see their attacks become a lot more devastating and see a much worse response from the first world.


Dude, no.  In no way, shape or form will this cause a larger war.  You guys need to get some perspective.
 
2013-09-03 01:33:00 PM

Confabulat: Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?

I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?


believeinreason.com

Remember when?
 
2013-09-03 01:33:33 PM

BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...


Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.
 
2013-09-03 01:33:34 PM

nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before


Said what, that he'll "support" Obama? Note the quote: "I am going to support the president's call for action," he told reporters. "I believe my colleagues should support this call for action." That's not a guarantee, nor does it even say that Boehner is going to work for passage, it's a statement of Boehner's personal support. If Obama wants to get it passed, he'd better be doing some heavy-duty lobbying about now and not just sitting back waiting for somebody else to do the work.
 
2013-09-03 01:33:38 PM

LeroyBourne: TheNewJesus:

And here I voted for this guy thinking he wouldn't pull this kind of crap...

I about spit when I heard my mother (her being a huge lib) call him bush jr.  It's kinda sad when you see so many people 'lose their faith.'
/i'm not there yet, but am getting there.


I lose faith every time I see someone who cannot distinguish the difference between Obama and Bush. Jesus, the amount of lack of perspective necessary.
 
2013-09-03 01:34:09 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: wxboy: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

We could break that down by "conservative vs. liberal" and I think they'd mostly come down on one side.

All on the liberal side

/Bush was one of the most liberal POTUS's in history


Massive expansion of Medicare
Liberation of oppressed peoples
Sticking up to religious extremists
Increasing the federal government size massively
Using the nations credit card like a crack whore

Yeah he did have a Liberal streak to him
 
2013-09-03 01:34:22 PM
Goddamn it.
 
2013-09-03 01:34:34 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.


Perhaps Boner's goal here is to end up with Obama vilified.  Because no matter how obvious, or how popular, Boner's been determined to block anything and everything coming through there.  Why is THIS the exception??
 
2013-09-03 01:34:39 PM

vygramul: Kit Fister: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

why, is it not a legitimate fear?

No.


www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-09-03 01:34:41 PM

Rapmaster2000: This incompetent empty-suit can't even get Republicans to support a war.  WTF is this guy's problem?


LOL
 
2013-09-03 01:34:56 PM

Cletus C.: Kyosuke: If only we'd put this much thought into Dubya's motivations regarding Iraq before sending so many of our young men and women to die there.

We put a lot more thought into that. Then Congress voted to let the war birds fly.


lol

If by "thought" you mean "lies," sure.
 
2013-09-03 01:35:00 PM
Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?
 
2013-09-03 01:35:25 PM

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


100% in favor of.
 
2013-09-03 01:35:31 PM

groppet: Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

/would rather not be involved


They'll at least flatten some empty government office buildings after notifying the Syrians that those are our targets. That'll show 'em.
 
2013-09-03 01:35:43 PM

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

Obama: I want to bomb the crap out of Syria
GOP: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.
Obama: But they used chemical weapons!
GOP: Yeah, but we really hate you!
Obama: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!
GOP: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.
Obama: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!
GOP:   Ohhhhh.  Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 375x325]

An odd thing to post in a story about the Republican speaker supporting Obama.


Boehner was against it before his meeting. I am guessing this is how Obama convinced him.
 
2013-09-03 01:35:47 PM

vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.


Yugoslavia gave us a great Gene Hackman/Owen Wilson teamup movie.
 
2013-09-03 01:36:13 PM

keepitcherry: Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?


I can think of one, very superficial difference that means a lot to a lot of people....
 
2013-09-03 01:36:21 PM

jjorsett: groppet: Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

/would rather not be involved

They'll at least flatten some empty government office buildings after notifying the Syrians that those are our targets. That'll show 'em.


Ah, yet another person whose entire foreign-policy experience comes from watching The West Wing.
 
2013-09-03 01:36:27 PM

neversubmit: vygramul: Kit Fister: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

why, is it not a legitimate fear?

No.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x390]


Not a chance.
 
2013-09-03 01:36:58 PM

Phinn: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

I think the LAPD's hunt for Dorner involved more firepower than Grenada and Panama combined.

Also, if you're going to count Iraq as Parts 1 and 2, then you have to count Yugoslavia as two -- "Bosnia" and "Kosovo."


Yes, that tilts the score on the libs being warmongers - wo0t.
Pointless and aggressive wars is what this country is shaping up to be all about, isn't it?
 
2013-09-03 01:37:00 PM

keepitcherry: Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?


Are you high, or 14?
 
2013-09-03 01:37:03 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: keepitcherry: Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?

I can think of one, very superficial difference that means a lot to a lot of people....


The fact that Obama actually gets a case that isn't based on a source called Curveball comes to mind.
 
2013-09-03 01:37:33 PM

I_C_Weener: Confabulat: Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?

I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?

[believeinreason.com image 460x288]

Remember when?


Yeah.  The sad truth is that if you have the right job such as secretary of state, diplomat, VP or Prime Minister, you are going to shake hands with some horrible people.
 
2013-09-03 01:37:42 PM
John Boehner:  Congressional Speaker of the House of Representatives cat herder.
 
2013-09-03 01:38:13 PM

I_C_Weener: vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.

Yugoslavia gave us a great Gene Hackman/Owen Wilson teamup movie.


Link
 
2013-09-03 01:38:14 PM

LasersHurt: keepitcherry: Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?

Are you high, or 14?


high as a giraffe's balls.
 
2013-09-03 01:38:42 PM

cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY


Who gets credit for the Cold War?
 
2013-09-03 01:38:44 PM

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

100% in favor of.



Ok. Next.

What should be bombed, and to what degree?
 
2013-09-03 01:39:04 PM

I_C_Weener: Rapmaster2000: This incompetent empty-suit can't even get Republicans to support a war.  WTF is this guy's problem?

LOL


He's too busy talking like a buffoon, see "wub wub wub wub wub repeal Obamacare wub wub wub", plus working on booking his next tanning bed appointment.
 
2013-09-03 01:39:41 PM

fireclown: I_C_Weener: Confabulat: Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?

I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?

[believeinreason.com image 460x288]

Remember when?

Yeah.  The sad truth is that if you have the right job such as secretary of state, diplomat, VP or Prime Minister, you are going to shake hands with some horrible people.


And other people will post pics about it and say, "See?  You are evil."  Poor, poor, Neville Longbottom.
 
2013-09-03 01:39:56 PM

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

100% in favor of.


Ok. Next.

What should be bombed, and to what degree?


HE just told you, Syria, 100%
 
2013-09-03 01:40:08 PM

Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?


Seriously.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:02 PM
what happens if syria calls our bluff and uses it again and again? we going to invade?
 
2013-09-03 01:41:09 PM
Are we trusting the Syrian rebels (Al Qaeda) to give us intel on where to bomb?

This plan may have some flaws in it.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:16 PM
Things I've learned in this thread:

Getting involved in WWII was a mistake

All wars are created equal

Farkers care more about which American is to blame for a war than they do about its cause

Democrats / Republicans 100% unconditionally support action in Syria depending on which party you ask
 
2013-09-03 01:41:18 PM

Electrify: So since Republican House Speaker John Boehner is siding with Obama on this one, does this mean we can add him to the "list of people who are conspiring against the GOP and therefore America?"


If those two people actually agree on something it must be the crappiest idea ever crapped out of any craphole.

More bullshiat media theater.
More idiots eating it up.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:31 PM
So Obama will finally put a stop to those WMDs that Saddam moved into Syria before we entered Iraq.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:36 PM

I_C_Weener: Confabulat: Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?

I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?

[believeinreason.com image 460x288]

Remember when?


Yes, because Syria is EXACTLY like Iraq. Except Syria was/is backed by Russia instead of the US and got its chemical weapons from Russia. While in Iraq the west helped with their WMD program/encouraged it. Plus Kerry was a senator during that photo, not part of any administration. I am skeptical of striking Syria as anyone, but comparing Syria and Iraq doesn't add up when you look at the facts. Those are two completely different situations.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:40 PM

Confabulat: Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?

I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?


Kerry ate dinner with Assat.  Nevermind that that was probably before civil war broke out and there is likely no connection whatsover to current relations.  Kerry at some point in time sat at a table with him.  Therefore threatenting remarks/deals/conspiracies/wars were planned.

/anyone else like that one?  "Assat"?  Say it fast.
 
2013-09-03 01:41:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jjorsett: groppet: Obama should have never give that "Don't cross this line" BS about the use of chemical weapons. Well they caled his bluff and made him look bad in front of his woman, so now he has to cut a motherfarker. All I wonder is will it be a "symbolic" bombing where a few radar stations, bridges a airfield or two are bombed. Or will they go after the chemical weapon stockpiles.

/would rather not be involved

They'll at least flatten some empty government office buildings after notifying the Syrians that those are our targets. That'll show 'em.

Ah, yet another person whose entire foreign-policy experience comes from watching The West Wing.


Actually, it was from watching Bill Clinton, scourge of Middle Eastern janitors.
 
2013-09-03 01:42:18 PM

I_C_Weener: Confabulat: Deep Contact: We'll just say you were responsible for the chemical attack.
How'd you like the shrimp?

I don't understand the supposed scandal here. What am I missing?

Remember when?


CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
 
2013-09-03 01:42:45 PM
Boehner is a joke.
That is all.
If you don't want this stupid shiat to continue, let your representatives know.

Disclosure - Libertarian
 
2013-09-03 01:42:48 PM

Heliovdrake: Ok. Next.

What should be bombed, and to what degree?


I just realized that you're the same dude who has been cyber stalking me. Sorry, not dealing with you.
 
2013-09-03 01:42:53 PM

Apik0r0s: [i.dawn.com image 543x275]
Shocking.


^This and this answer all the questions:
www.lobelog.com
 
2013-09-03 01:43:32 PM

George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?


War on Drugs anyone?
 
2013-09-03 01:44:14 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: Ok. Next.

What should be bombed, and to what degree?

I just realized that you're the same dude who has been cyber stalking me. Sorry, not dealing with you.


What should be bombed, and to what degree?

/difficulty: not an alt.
 
2013-09-03 01:44:44 PM

Barbecue Bob: George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?

War on Drugs anyone?


War on Hunger? And more people are going hungry today than when it started 40 years ago.
 
2013-09-03 01:45:22 PM

DubtodaIll: This isn't WWIII.  WWIII doesn't start until July 14th, 2014 in the aftermath of the US winning the World Cup Final.


The same year the cubs win the world series
 
2013-09-03 01:46:28 PM

lincoln65: Things I've learned in this thread:

Getting involved in WWII was a mistake

All wars are created equal

Farkers care more about which American is to blame for a war than they do about its cause

Democrats / Republicans 100% unconditionally support action in Syria depending on which party you ask


1. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. As Germany and Japan were allies, Germany declared war on us the very next day. We had a reason to be in the war because they attacked us first.
2. All war is bad and should be avoided as much as possible. Treating wars equally ensures that we have the right perspective in avoiding armed conflict.
3. Yes, blame game is important in American politics
4. No, there are good people in the political parties that don't want war
 
2013-09-03 01:46:45 PM
obama is a piece of shiat
 
2013-09-03 01:46:45 PM
John Boehner secures campaign funds from his defense contractor lobbyists.
 
2013-09-03 01:46:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!


The only reason Iraq I did not start a larger regional conflict is that we had troops and other assets on the ground (Patriot Missiles) to minimize the threat against Israel, and we had the diplomatic ties with Israel to get them to agree not to retaliate against those attacks that did get through.  Also, in Iraq I the threat of an escalating conflict was actually greater without U.S. involvement, because Iraq had completely misread (or ignored) the likely response of other regional powers to their invasion of Kuwait.

Iraq II, Iraq no longer had the resources to threaten Israel or other U.S. allies (although ironically, we claimed they did prior to attacking, so . . . yeah).
Afghanistan can't credibly threaten Israel or other U.S. allies.
Gaddafi's Libya, strangely, was actually getting support from Israel so no threat there.

Syria has a credible ability to directly attack Israel in retaliation (how much they could do while their forces are occupied with the rebels is open to debate) and Iran has similarly threatened to retaliate against Israel.  Whether or not either country would actually be stupid enough to do so (especially at a time when Egypt would be unlikely to back an attack on Israel) is again, open to debate.

But there is certainly a much larger risk of this escalating into a regional conflict than there was in the cases you mentioned.
 
2013-09-03 01:47:04 PM
I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?
 
2013-09-03 01:47:53 PM

George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?


Republicans.  They worked it like a butter churn.

/McCarthey was a republican wasn't he?
//To the googles!
 
2013-09-03 01:48:17 PM

Barbecue Bob: George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?

War on Drugs anyone?


blogimages.bloggen.be
 
2013-09-03 01:48:44 PM

Kit Fister: What should be bombed, and to what degree?


I'd start with things like missile delivery systems, radar and communication stations. After that, we'll see if Assad chills. If he pulls any more shiat, go after every tank, plane, and military target you can find. Oh and his palace, level that too.
 
2013-09-03 01:49:12 PM

paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?


http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.
 
2013-09-03 01:49:20 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-03 01:49:32 PM
SpectroBoy:
  Obama: I want to bomb the crap out of Syria
  GOP: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.
  Obama: But they used chemical weapons!
  GOP: Yeah, but we really hate you!
  Obama: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!
  GOP: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.
  Obama: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!
  GOP:   Ohhhhh.  Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!


Works the other way around, too:

  Obama Bush: I want to bomb the crap out of Syria Iraq
  GOP Dems: We must stand against you. You know, it's sort of our thing.
  Bush: But they used chemical weapons!
  Dems: Yeah, but we really hate you!
  Bush: If we don't follow through, we will lose credibility!
  Dems: Sorry, we hate you more than we love our country.
  Bush: Listen, I want to bomb BROWN people who aren't Christians!!!!
  Dems: Ohhhhh. Why didn't you say so! That's a horse of a different color!!!!
 
2013-09-03 01:49:45 PM
I for one see no point in getting involved - we have enough problems at home we need to spend money on first before we throw it away on a country with no relation to us at all.

Here's the official whitehouse.gov petition against the war:  https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/no-war-syria/QcTV4m0F
 
2013-09-03 01:49:48 PM
Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.
 
2013-09-03 01:50:49 PM

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

100% in favor of.


Ok. Next.

What should be bombed, and to what degree?


chemical weapons caches (if we can identify)
Syrian military facilities (launch facilities)

that's it, remotely, and to the degree of total annihilation.

leave the infrastructure intact
notify the civilian populace (most are already fleeing) of our intentions

let Assad rebuild Syria, ,maybe he can purchase some arms from Russia and build a house out of them.

let the world know that the use of chemicals on civilian populations will not be tolerated.

at least this time we have proof of use.
 
2013-09-03 01:50:58 PM

mike_d85: George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?

Republicans.  They worked it like a butter churn.

/McCarthey was a republican wasn't he?
//To the googles!


He was.
 
2013-09-03 01:51:05 PM

mike_d85: George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?

Republicans.  They worked it like a butter churn.

/McCarthey was a republican wasn't he?
//To the googles!


So you're saying they killed Kennedy because he was going to end the Cold War? Cool.
 
2013-09-03 01:51:18 PM
Didn't he once said that he's against any kind of war what so ever and what not?
 
2013-09-03 01:51:39 PM
How is this our problem?
Yes, using poison gas is bad, but so is shelling an apartment building. Both sides are assholes, nether side will become a nice western democracy with walmart and reality tv so who cares. No matter what we do they are going to hate us do fark it lets just save the money and the cruse missiles.

/Mr. Obama we the American people respect the size of your penis, it is much bigger than Mr. Assad's. Please put it back in your pants and quit waving it around its frightening the children.
 
2013-09-03 01:51:55 PM

freak7: Kit Fister: What should be bombed, and to what degree?

I'd start with things like missile delivery systems, radar and communication stations. After that, we'll see if Assad chills. If he pulls any more shiat, go after every tank, plane, and military target you can find. Oh and his palace, level that too.


When do you ship out?
 
2013-09-03 01:52:28 PM

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Full Retard has been engaged.


The USA funding Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood "protesters" is more retarded .
 
2013-09-03 01:52:31 PM

Andrew Wiggin: high as a giraffe's balls.


It's as clear as beer piss.
 
2013-09-03 01:53:09 PM

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Full Retard has been engaged.

The USA funding Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood "protesters" is more retarded .


ooooooooookay
 
2013-09-03 01:53:33 PM
Cool, the one time the republicans and the democrats can come together is to get involved in yet another idiotic military operation
 
2013-09-03 01:53:47 PM

CynicalLA: When do you ship out?


My old ass has done my time. Honestly, I'd reenlist today if they'd have me, but I'm too old to go back in. Civilian life sucks a fat one compared to the excitement of being in the military.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:09 PM

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



lol

ole' Boner is going to back Obama, whether he likes it or not.  the Pentagon, one of Boner's Owners, said so.

hey, i like that. Boner's Owners.   someone needs to compile a list of Boner's Owners.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:20 PM

Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.


At least a hundred, holy shiat.  Let's hope they can persuade the president not to kill brown people.
 
2013-09-03 01:54:53 PM

Barbecue Bob: George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?

War on Drugs anyone?


War on Poverty?  Booyah, LBJ!!! Way to get us involved in two unwinnable wars.
 
2013-09-03 01:55:19 PM

George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?


The real cause of most of those wars, and including the current conflicts in Syria et al are British, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Italian, and Dutch (did I miss any?) Imperialism. So the only REAL question we need to ask is, were the leaders during that time period republican or democrat?

Because that question is about as stupid as this ongoing discussion of which president was involved in which wars.
 
2013-09-03 01:55:24 PM

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


Does that mean the republicans will get the Peace Prize, too?
 
2013-09-03 01:55:54 PM

freak7: CynicalLA: When do you ship out?

My old ass has done my time. Honestly, I'd reenlist today if they'd have me, but I'm too old to go back in. Civilian life sucks a fat one compared to the excitement of being in the military.


If you need excitement you should fark a bear, but don't advocate yet another futile war in the middle east.
 
2013-09-03 01:55:58 PM

Andrew Wiggin: Deep Contact: How'd you like the shrimp?


The ocean called, they're running out of shrimp
 
2013-09-03 01:55:59 PM

bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.


Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.
 
2013-09-03 01:56:18 PM

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



its good for business. as long as GOP mice/kids are not doing the dying.
 
2013-09-03 01:56:36 PM

jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.


There isn't, when you stop ignoring all of the crucial details. But you knew that.
 
2013-09-03 01:57:29 PM

I_C_Weener: vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.

Yugoslavia gave us a great Gene Hackman/Owen Wilson teamup movie.


No love for Grenada?

I know Mario van Peebles is no Owen Wilson, but it did have Clint Eastwood.
 
2013-09-03 01:58:40 PM

LasersHurt: jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.

There isn't, when you stop ignoring all of the crucial details. But you knew that.



The Iraq invasion began on a Wednesday.  Totally different situation.
 
2013-09-03 01:59:13 PM

soakitincider: obama is a piece of shiat


what insightful commentary. thank you for your well thought out argument.
 
2013-09-03 01:59:16 PM

obamadidcoke: freak7: CynicalLA: When do you ship out?

My old ass has done my time. Honestly, I'd reenlist today if they'd have me, but I'm too old to go back in. Civilian life sucks a fat one compared to the excitement of being in the military.

If you need excitement you should fark a bear, but don't advocate yet another futile war in the middle east.


Futile? It depends on the game plan. If all we do are some air campaigns and strategic strikes to remove Assad from power and cripple his military, that is one thing. If we go about it the Iraq way and occupy it with ground forces fighting a guerilla warfare against insurgents, that is another thing. The problem with Iraq is that we remained there after the dust settled. Let the Syrians figure shiat out once all they have left to fight each other with are sticks and stones.
 
2013-09-03 01:59:21 PM

vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.


We largely bombed Yugoslavia from the air.  LOTS of bodies in that one--just not Americans.
 
2013-09-03 01:59:48 PM
Russia saying they were going to lobby Congress against intervention probably pulled lot of Republicans' Cold War WHARGRRBL string.

They must be so confused right now, like an autistic kid with Wapner on two different channels.
 
2013-09-03 02:00:04 PM

obamadidcoke: war


Bombing some shiat to send a message isn't a "war". If Syria retaliates against targets in the USA or Israel, then you can call it a war, deal?
 
2013-09-03 02:00:22 PM

bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.


Yeah, helping out Al Qaeda linked rebels (by removing Saddam, thus giving them a place to go) was totally not what we did in Iraq.

I know, your team's guy is president now, so it is cool
 
2013-09-03 02:00:32 PM

paygun: Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.

At least a hundred, holy shiat.  Let's hope they can persuade the president not to kill brown people.


A bunch of Assad-lovers if you ask me.

The important point is, if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops.  You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The troops need our support.  You need to support the troops.

You're not an Assad-lover, are you?
 
2013-09-03 02:00:53 PM

give me doughnuts: I_C_Weener: vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.

Yugoslavia gave us a great Gene Hackman/Owen Wilson teamup movie.

No love for Grenada?

I know Mario van Peebles is no Owen Wilson, but it did have Clint Eastwood.


Did we even get a made for television after school special out of Panama?
 
2013-09-03 02:00:55 PM
sadlyno.com

looking for the better forecast that includes the freezing aftermath but my google fu is weak.
 
2013-09-03 02:01:16 PM

soakitincider: obama is a piece of shiat



no he isn't.  he's caught between a rock and a hard place. the hard place being the GOP and the reality of syria gasing its citizens.  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.

if your boy bush was in there, you'd be waving your Flag and screaming about Freedom.
 
2013-09-03 02:01:28 PM

freak7: Bombing some shiat to send a message isn't a "war".


it isn't a war it's idiocy
 
2013-09-03 02:01:44 PM
Rush says, "Obama used the chemical gas in Syria!"

He is just asking questions. LOL

/sigh
 
2013-09-03 02:02:00 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-03 02:02:03 PM

LasersHurt: jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.

There isn't, when you stop ignoring all of the crucial details. But you knew that.


Similarity and equality are different concepts.  Of course if one looks closely enough at details, there will be differences.  Iraq is not Syria (they're spelled differently and have different borders), but that doesn't mean that the two situations share nothing in common.

In both cases, there's likely to be sectarian nastiness after we depose the dictator -- who, in both cases, is from a minority in the country in question (Alawite/Syria or Sunni/Iraq -- take your pick).  ...so we'll end up trading one murderous bastard for thousands of murderous bastards who'll go on yet another rampage of sectarian violence & ethnic cleansing.
 
2013-09-03 02:02:44 PM

freak7: obamadidcoke: war

Bombing some shiat to send a message isn't a "war". If Syria retaliates against targets in the USA or Israel, then you can call it a war, deal?


Bombing for peace is like posting on Fark looking for....oh.
 
2013-09-03 02:02:59 PM
Perhaps I'm politically naive but it seems out of character for Obama to push this issue, and I'm entertaining the possibility that it is a political ploy.  By giving the Republicans that impression that Syria is important they will be satisfied with him caving, instead of having to cave on a different subject such as appointments, ACA, budget, or immigration.  Something along the thought "Hey look guys, I gave you what you wanted on Syria, you can't say I'm not compromising.  Take this 'win' and move on."

I know politics is nothing like chess, and for some politicians "advanced strategy" is "put underwear on first".  But it cannot be too far fetched that someone in DC could have built this up and put it in play.
 
2013-09-03 02:02:59 PM
and for the record,

i am not advocating war, more like a skirmish.

nor am i advocating choosing a side in their civil war, i am a big fan of a peoples right to fight for their independence.

I am suggesting removing the ability to launch chemical weapons attacks on civilians, that's what raised the red flag, that's what i advocate remedying.

Fark Syria, Fark Assad, Fark Russia & Fark China.
 
2013-09-03 02:03:03 PM

Rapmaster2000: A bunch of Assad-lovers if you ask me.

The important point is, if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops.  You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The troops need our support.  You need to support the troops.

You're not an Assad-lover, are you?


NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
 
2013-09-03 02:03:58 PM

Electrify: So since Republican House Speaker John Boehner is siding with Obama on this one, does this mean we can add him to the "list of people who are conspiring against the GOP and therefore America?"


I've already added him, but thanks!
 
2013-09-03 02:04:11 PM

JDAT: hammettman: .  We've been arming the "good" rebels

[www.needlol.com image 320x316]


I agree.  No matter which guys we armed, sooner or later it's going to turn out that we armed bad guys.  It seems to be the way of these things.
 
2013-09-03 02:04:11 PM

plcow: George Babbitt: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

Who gets credit for the Cold War?

The real cause of most of those wars, and including the current conflicts in Syria et al are British, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Italian, and Dutch (did I miss any?) Imperialism. So the only REAL question we need to ask is, were the leaders during that time period republican or democrat?

Because that question is about as stupid as this ongoing discussion of which president was involved in which wars.


Fine, were they Loyalists, Tories, Socialists, Facists, Monarchists, Emperors, Labour, Communist, Social Democrats, Unionists, Statists, Peasants League....?
 
2013-09-03 02:05:16 PM
at least Obama is doing it the right way.  getting the CONgress to own up and do its job and make some decisions/ take some responsibility and follow the Constitution.  if uncle george was in there, he'd be busting missile caps on Syrian ass.  he wouldn't worry about any Constitution. why should he, he's from Texass.
 
2013-09-03 02:05:48 PM

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.


Add the cheerleaders from these threads and I'm in.

/can't believe I'm agreeing with you.
 
2013-09-03 02:06:12 PM

I_C_Weener: Bombing for peace is like posting on Fark looking for....oh.


Nobody said we're bombing for peace. We'd be bombing to send a very clear message that if you violate international law by using chemical weapons, you're gonna have a bad day. As for the civil war or whatever is going on in Syria, many of the rebel groups are as bad, if not worse, than Assad. I have no interest in supporting the rebels. This is a one and done deal as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-09-03 02:06:21 PM

paygun: Rapmaster2000: A bunch of Assad-lovers if you ask me.

The important point is, if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops.  You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The troops need our support.  You need to support the troops.

You're not an Assad-lover, are you?

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!


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.
 
2013-09-03 02:06:50 PM

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


and spying on Americans.
 
2013-09-03 02:06:56 PM
ITT: Rational people versus People who are not in the military yet expect people who are in the military to accept budget cuts, benefit reductions while putting their lives on the line for unfounded nonsensical rumors based on intelligence as reliable as yellowcake reports in the Bush admin in a country we have absolutely zero stake in to defend a country that repeatedly mocks us and refers to us as cattle.

Did I miss anything?
 
2013-09-03 02:07:37 PM
Nope, can't have it both ways Libs. This will be Obammy's war, plain and simple.
 
2013-09-03 02:07:38 PM

jshine: LasersHurt: jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.

There isn't, when you stop ignoring all of the crucial details. But you knew that.

Similarity and equality are different concepts.  Of course if one looks closely enough at details, there will be differences.  Iraq is not Syria (they're spelled differently and have different borders), but that doesn't mean that the two situations share nothing in common.

In both cases, there's likely to be sectarian nastiness after we depose the dictator -- who, in both cases, is from a minority in the country in question (Alawite/Syria or Sunni/Iraq -- take your pick).  ...so we'll end up trading one murderous bastard for thousands of murderous bastards who'll go on yet another rampage of sectarian violence & ethnic cleansing.


Nobody'd deposing anything.
 
2013-09-03 02:07:50 PM

Weaver95: I just can't see any way where bombing Syria works out well for anyone.



for one thing, it'll help create some more Terrorists.  hey, maybe that is why Syria did it. they knew we'd get our bombing on and they would use it to help recruit young dumb full of cum men for Terrorist training. its a win win!!
 
2013-09-03 02:09:21 PM

Linux_Yes: at least Obama is doing it the right way.  getting the CONgress to own up and do its job and make some decisions/ take some responsibility and follow the Constitution.  if uncle george was in there, he'd be busting missile caps on Syrian ass.  he wouldn't worry about any Constitution. why should he, he's from Texass.


Congress authorized the war in Iraq.  After he asked.  In fact, every member of Congress that gave him that power abdicated their duty under the Constitution.  But, you know, making up facts is fun.
 
2013-09-03 02:09:23 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 02:09:35 PM

give me doughnuts: I_C_Weener: vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.

Yugoslavia gave us a great Gene Hackman/Owen Wilson teamup movie.

No love for Grenada?

I know Mario van Peebles is no Owen Wilson, but it did have Clint Eastwood.


Good point.
 
2013-09-03 02:10:22 PM

Rapmaster2000: paygun: Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.

At least a hundred, holy shiat.  Let's hope they can persuade the president not to kill brown people.

A bunch of Assad-lovers if you ask me.

The important point is, if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops.  You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The troops need our support.  You need to support the troops.

You're not an Assad-lover, are you?


Broken record. You sound like one.

I support our troops... coming home.
 
2013-09-03 02:10:43 PM

BravadoGT: vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.

We largely bombed Yugoslavia from the air.  LOTS of bodies in that one--just not Americans.


We're largely just going to bomb Syria from the air.
 
2013-09-03 02:10:59 PM

freak7: I_C_Weener: Bombing for peace is like posting on Fark looking for....oh.

Nobody said we're bombing for peace. We'd be bombing to send a very clear message that if you violate international law by using chemical weapons, you're gonna have a bad day. As for the civil war or whatever is going on in Syria, many of the rebel groups are as bad, if not worse, than Assad. I have no interest in supporting the rebels. This is a one and done deal as far as I'm concerned.


Just a footnote to your post. According the UN CW Resolution, which Syria signed*, it's illegal to use them against other countries, not illegal to use them internally.
/* Syria reserved the right to gas Israel, but signed onto the rest.
 
2013-09-03 02:11:13 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Weird, democrats screaming for war and republicans screaming for peace.
How about instead of killing Syrians we kill politicians instead?



if Mittens Rmoney had won last year, GOP would be screaming for war.   the GOP is afraid that Obama might do it right (which he will) and make bushie boy look stupid. AND this would increase Obama's popularity so that HILLARY can ride into the White House on Obama's coattail.

the thougth of that scares the living shiat out of GOP butts!!
 
2013-09-03 02:11:15 PM
Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?
 
2013-09-03 02:11:21 PM
Chemical and biological weapons are in a special class for a reason. They are not decisive militarily. Troops tend to be hardened targets. Civilians are far more at risk. Plus, containment is difficult to impossible. Civilians far away and in the future may be in danger long after and far from the battlefield. Bombs and bullets only kill once, and while mistakes can be made, the risk is mostly over once the trigger is pulled.

If one uses these types of weapons, the international community needs to respond in a way that lets the aggressor know in no uncertain terms that there will be a price. Hopefully that price makes it not worth using those weapons in the first place.

It's not about sides, it's about discouraging anyone from ever using these weapons.
 
2013-09-03 02:11:35 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 02:12:16 PM
This is pretty sad.  We may be sticking our foot in it, completely based on politics.  I think Obama made his "red line" ultimatum so he could be accused by the GOP as being weak, but fully intending to leave the responsibility in the GOP congresses lap. The Republicans could say No we're not going to strike, thus leaving all the responsibility of the consequences on themselves, or they could say Yes, go ahead Mr President, thus sharing the responsibility with Obama.

Looks like Boner just wants to share the blame, rather than making the right decision, or the decision his constituents want.
 
2013-09-03 02:12:16 PM
We were warned...
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-03 02:12:33 PM

Barbecue Bob: Rapmaster2000: paygun: Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.

At least a hundred, holy shiat.  Let's hope they can persuade the president not to kill brown people.

A bunch of Assad-lovers if you ask me.

The important point is, if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops.  You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The troops need our support.  You need to support the troops.

You're not an Assad-lover, are you?

Broken record. You sound like one.

I support our troops... coming home.


So, you don't think our soldiers out there facing who knows what, risking their lives, and bringing freedom to the world don't deserve to come in some Third World hooker?  Well, sir, I don't think I've seen a worse example of an American.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:08 PM
couldn't be accused*
 
2013-09-03 02:13:24 PM

Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?



I'm still waiting to hear what Cindy Sheehan has to say.

And Touré.  And Joy Behar.

Then the circle of morality will be complete, and we can receive our opinions accordingly.
 
2013-09-03 02:13:37 PM
uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia

cman: FTFY


"When I was a young man, they told me if I voted for Goldwater, I'd get sent to Vietnam. I voted for Goldwater and sure enough, I got sent to Vietnam."
 
2013-09-03 02:14:09 PM
Once Obama utters the "I don't do what's popular, I do what's right" statement his transformation will be complete.
 
2013-09-03 02:14:31 PM

LasersHurt: LeroyBourne: TheNewJesus:

And here I voted for this guy thinking he wouldn't pull this kind of crap...

I about spit when I heard my mother (her being a huge lib) call him bush jr.  It's kinda sad when you see so many people 'lose their faith.'
/i'm not there yet, but am getting there.

I lose faith every time I see someone who cannot distinguish the difference between Obama and Bush. Jesus, the amount of lack of perspective necessary.


Well, it's just her opinion.  Not that I share it completely.  If Obama goes in this with out knowing who pulled the cw trigger, yeah, that's going into war over a lie.  Kinda bushy of him.  I'm still holding back until we find out the truth of who we're dealing with.
 
2013-09-03 02:14:48 PM

Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?


I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.
 
2013-09-03 02:14:57 PM

StopLurkListen: If one uses these types of weapons, the international community needs to respond in a way that lets the aggressor know in no uncertain terms that there will be a price. Hopefully that price makes it not worth using those weapons in the first place.


The "international community" already has made it clear they don't care, so why is it up to America to get involved unilaterally.
 
2013-09-03 02:16:06 PM
And here we go, yet again.

www.zahal.org
 
2013-09-03 02:16:08 PM

I_C_Weener: Linux_Yes: at least Obama is doing it the right way.  getting the CONgress to own up and do its job and make some decisions/ take some responsibility and follow the Constitution.  if uncle george was in there, he'd be busting missile caps on Syrian ass.  he wouldn't worry about any Constitution. why should he, he's from Texass.

Congress authorized the war in Iraq.  After he asked.  In fact, every member of Congress that gave him that power abdicated their duty under the Constitution.  But, you know, making up facts is fun.



yea, after the smokescreen of 'yea we know for a fact sadam has WMD's'    that turned out to be GOP Propaganda to get ole' George and the CONgress to pull the trigger.

nice try, though.
 
2013-09-03 02:16:18 PM

The Southern Dandy: This is pretty sad.  We may be sticking our foot in it, completely based on politics.  I think Obama made his "red line" ultimatum so he could be accused by the GOP as being weak, but fully intending to leave the responsibility in the GOP congresses lap. The Republicans could say No we're not going to strike, thus leaving all the responsibility of the consequences on themselves, or they could say Yes, go ahead Mr President, thus sharing the responsibility with Obama.

Looks like Boner just wants to share the blame, rather than making the right decision, or the decision his constituents want.


Cause that worked so well for Bush in Iraq......
 
2013-09-03 02:16:25 PM

LasersHurt: jshine: LasersHurt: jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.

There isn't, when you stop ignoring all of the crucial details. But you knew that.

Similarity and equality are different concepts.  Of course if one looks closely enough at details, there will be differences.  Iraq is not Syria (they're spelled differently and have different borders), but that doesn't mean that the two situations share nothing in common.

In both cases, there's likely to be sectarian nastiness after we depose the dictator -- who, in both cases, is from a minority in the country in question (Alawite/Syria or Sunni/Iraq -- take your pick).  ...so we'll end up trading one murderous bastard for thousands of murderous bastards who'll go on yet another rampage of sectarian violence & ethnic cleansing.

Nobody'd deposing anything.


Oh, not now, no -- that's step 3 or 4.  There's no reason to suppose Assad would take the hint if we lobbed in a few missiles; he certainly hasn't been paying much attention to the West up until this point.  ...and to simply throw a few missiles at some chemical sites and then stop while he continued to kill civilians (with or without gas) would make the US look even more impotent.  So we'd be left in an even worse position, with even more justification for escalating the conflict & trying to kill him or at least depose him.  Maybe deposing him isn't on the table at the moment, but we're setting up a situation that has a very high likelihood of leading in that direction.

The only other conceivable end-point would be Assad deciding to end his side of the civil war, and the rebels letting that happen (without forcing him into a corner).  That doesn't seem too likely.
 
2013-09-03 02:16:27 PM

JDAT: Once Obama utters the "I don't do what's popular, I do what's right" statement his transformation will be complete.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
"I'm the decider."
 
2013-09-03 02:16:31 PM

Weaver95: I just can't see any way where bombing Syria works out well for anyone.


Pretty damn much. Rebels, government forces, it's going to be an opening for every stripe of opportunist here and abroad for a feeding frenzy of looting, revenge, and outright raiding of equipment and cash. It's going to stir up a huge amount of chaos, and with only air strikes, it will force folks to do their killing up close and personal, and far from an exchange of power from one government to another. It's just going to make things a lot more personal, ugly, and cement these grudges for another century.
 
2013-09-03 02:17:24 PM
Shouldn't the people napalming schools full of kids get at least a little bit of the blame for "starting World War III"?
 
2013-09-03 02:17:25 PM

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Full Retard has been engaged.

The USA funding Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood "protesters" is more retarded .

ooooooooookay


Maybe funding is not the right word to use. I should have used the words 'arming' and 'training'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-fir st -ciatrained-rebel-unit-about-to-join-fighting-against-assad-regime-say s-obama-8796873.html
 
2013-09-03 02:17:26 PM

Headso: StopLurkListen: If one uses these types of weapons, the international community needs to respond in a way that lets the aggressor know in no uncertain terms that there will be a price. Hopefully that price makes it not worth using those weapons in the first place.

The "international community" already has made it clear they don't care, so why is it up to America to get involved unilaterally.


to repeat:  the international community needs to respond.
 
2013-09-03 02:17:34 PM

Linux_Yes: I_C_Weener: Linux_Yes: at least Obama is doing it the right way.  getting the CONgress to own up and do its job and make some decisions/ take some responsibility and follow the Constitution.  if uncle george was in there, he'd be busting missile caps on Syrian ass.  he wouldn't worry about any Constitution. why should he, he's from Texass.

Congress authorized the war in Iraq.  After he asked.  In fact, every member of Congress that gave him that power abdicated their duty under the Constitution.  But, you know, making up facts is fun.


yea, after the smokescreen of 'yea we know for a fact sadam has WMD's'    that turned out to be GOP Propaganda to get ole' George and the CONgress to pull the trigger.

nice try, though.


So, the point that Bush didn't ask for Congressional authority is wrong?  No.  Thank you sir.  You made my point better than I could.  Bully for you.
 
2013-09-03 02:17:57 PM

Rapmaster2000: I legitimately think that we'll consider them white people in 40 years.


For the purpose of bombing?  I don't know about that.  And besides, who knows who will be president in 40 years and which party they'll be from.  That's what decides whether things are good or bad.
 
2013-09-03 02:18:02 PM
What Boehner really said was "It's not like House Republicans listen to me anymore - if you can get them to do anything, knock yourself out."
 
2013-09-03 02:18:19 PM

I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.


people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.
 
2013-09-03 02:19:13 PM

Phinn: I'm still waiting to hear what Cindy Sheehan has to say.


Where is your god now
 
2013-09-03 02:19:15 PM

Apik0r0s: And here we go, yet again.

[www.zahal.org image 295x255]



lol


whatever we do, we MUST keep our Israeli friends happy!  its the right thing to do.  (;
 
2013-09-03 02:19:26 PM
Barbecue Bob:

Broken record. You sound like one.

I support our troops... coming home.


We had people like you back when I was in Nam, always holding us back from finishing the job.  And I did what I had to do to win!  But somebody wouldn't let us win!  And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting.  Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me?  Who are they?  Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
 
2013-09-03 02:19:49 PM

muck1969: Perhaps I'm politically naive but it seems out of character for Obama to push this issue, and I'm entertaining the possibility that it is a political ploy.  By giving the Republicans that impression that Syria is important they will be satisfied with him caving, instead of having to cave on a different subject such as appointments, ACA, budget, or immigration.  Something along the thought "Hey look guys, I gave you what you wanted on Syria, you can't say I'm not compromising.  Take this 'win' and move on."

I know politics is nothing like chess, and for some politicians "advanced strategy" is "put underwear on first".  But it cannot be too far fetched that someone in DC could have built this up and put it in play.


You are definitely naive. This is the same Obama that has the NSA spying on US citizens "to stop terrorism", then allows that data to be used in drug busts and copyright infringement. The difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric and gay marriage. That's about it
 
2013-09-03 02:20:43 PM

paygun: Rapmaster2000: I legitimately think that we'll consider them white people in 40 years.

For the purpose of bombing?  I don't know about that.  And besides, who knows who will be president in 40 years and which party they'll be from.  That's what decides whether things are good or bad.


I never thought we'd call the swarthy Huns white either, but here we are.
 
2013-09-03 02:21:07 PM

Pimparoo: Shouldn't the people napalming schools full of kids get at least a little bit of the blame for "starting World War III"?


Look, its only WWIII if enough people get involved.  In this war weary world, I just don't think we can get that kind of participation.  People just don't love to kill on a massive scale like they used to.  The Greatest Generation had the last great war.  And they are all but dead now.  Its sad really how this current crop of people can't even get fired up about a chance to blow things wide open and redraw borders for the next century.  Bunch of lazy asses is what happened.  Lazy asses as far as the globe can reach.
 
2013-09-03 02:21:15 PM

Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.


This
 
2013-09-03 02:21:31 PM

ManateeGag: BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.

I guess Obama's back to being an egomaniacle mastermind determined to destroy the planet.

When's he go back to being a stuffed suit puppet?


As soon as the first casualty lists come in.
 
2013-09-03 02:21:35 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.


Very ignorant statement. We stayed out of WWI and WWII ignoring the slaughter of millions of white folks. Yes, British, French, Dutch, you know the "good" white people so shut up!
 
2013-09-03 02:22:20 PM
Would be nice to have a president who doesn't suck Israel's dick for once.
 
2013-09-03 02:22:35 PM

LasersHurt: keepitcherry: Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?

Are you high, or 14?


I'm very high off some award winning Fire OG shatter glass, thanks for asking.
 
2013-09-03 02:22:35 PM

Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.


I got a pretty little Red White and Blue number.  We white out Iraq and put Syria right over it, no one will even know its used.  Any takers?
 
2013-09-03 02:23:34 PM

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Full Retard has been engaged.

The USA funding Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood "protesters" is more retarded .

ooooooooookay

Maybe funding is not the right word to use. I should have used the words 'arming' and 'training'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-fir st -ciatrained-rebel-unit-about-to-join-fighting-against-assad-regime-say s-obama-8796873.html


So you believe that everyone is in Al Qaeda and the MB, or just that we are incapable of knowing who represents whom?

Or is it a third option where we trained SOME people, but AQ/MB are also in play in the country?
 
2013-09-03 02:23:59 PM

Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.


Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.
 
2013-09-03 02:24:34 PM

Rapmaster2000: Barbecue Bob:

Broken record. You sound like one.

I support our troops... coming home.

We had people like you back when I was in Nam, always holding us back from finishing the job.  And I did what I had to do to win!  But somebody wouldn't let us win!  And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting.  Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me?  Who are they?  Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!


You want what all of those soldiers want...to be loved by their country, as much as they love their country!!!!!
 
2013-09-03 02:24:43 PM
Please someone stand up and stop these fools.
 
2013-09-03 02:24:51 PM

ManateeGag: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

no, Obama's bombing someone, so it's WWIII and we're all going to be nuked!


Iraq and Afghanistan weren't backed by Russia and China.
 
2013-09-03 02:25:07 PM

keepitcherry: Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.

Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.


Also, people accusing everyone who doesn't agree with them of being an "Obama Apologist."
 
2013-09-03 02:25:35 PM

keepitcherry: Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.

Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.


Yup. In before some mouth breather says BSABSVR!!!
 
2013-09-03 02:25:42 PM

keepitcherry: Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.

Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.


And Libya/Syria/Egypt threads their Hajj.  :)
 
2013-09-03 02:25:56 PM

keepitcherry: Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.

Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.


Only ignorant Tea Tards would think that.
 
2013-09-03 02:27:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.

Oh jeebus christ!!

Really?! You're putting this at the feet of the Republicans? The Democrat President says that he wants to do and that he's going to do it either way and somehow this is a Republican's war?!

The only way I would support this is if the President said he was going to do this either way, which I think he has. But I still believe that politics end at the water's edge. The President is going to do this. Either he can do this with Congress's blessing or without it. For the good of the nation I think we need to go to war with a whole and intact effort.


I only support this if a) There is clear proof and motive for Assad to have used the chemical weapons and b) there is clear benefit to the US that justifies the economic and diplomatic costs.
 
2013-09-03 02:27:33 PM

CynicalLA: keepitcherry: Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.

Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.

Only ignorant Tea Tards would think that.


Gentlemen, please!!!!  You can't fight in here.  This is the politics tab.
 
2013-09-03 02:27:49 PM

vygramul: BravadoGT: vygramul: BravadoGT: cman: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
Grenada
Panama

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Yugoslavia


FTFY

"Grenada?"  I've seen fights at football games that were longer and more bloody...

Odd - more American soldiers died in Grenada than in Yugoslavia. Yet you're not being defensive about Yugoslavia for some reason.

We largely bombed Yugoslavia from the air.  LOTS of bodies in that one--just not Americans.

We're largely just going to bomb Syria from the air.


you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!
 
2013-09-03 02:27:52 PM

Linux_Yes: soakitincider: obama is a piece of shiat


no he isn't.  he's caught between a rock and a hard place. the hard place being the GOP and the reality of syria gasing its citizens.  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.

if your boy bush was in there, you'd be waving your Flag and screaming about Freedom.


You are presuming that the world's terrorist/idiots are rational actors who are, today, only restraining themselves from using Chemical Weapons due to a nebulous threat of U.S. intervention, and I just don't think that's valid.

If you are either a sitting dictator who is choosing between the use of chemical agents and being dragged out of power, a theoretical U.S. attack doesn't really seem like a pressing concern.  Same story for terrorist organizations.
 
2013-09-03 02:28:13 PM

machoprogrammer: The difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric and gay marriage. That's about it


don't be racist dude
 
2013-09-03 02:28:41 PM
Stupid is as stupid does.
If a nazi and Klansmen were in a fight to the death, you dont take sides... you wait for one to kill the other then take out the one thats left. TOTAL stupidity on both sides is nothing new.
 
2013-09-03 02:29:12 PM

paygun: machoprogrammer: The difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric and gay marriage. That's about it

don't be racist dude


We get it.  Bush is white!
 
2013-09-03 02:30:24 PM

paygun: machoprogrammer: The difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric and gay marriage. That's about it

don't be racist dude


You shouldn't post while stroking your guns.
 
2013-09-03 02:30:45 PM

BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!


I don't know if you're aware of this but we're going to be greeted as liberators.
 
2013-09-03 02:31:42 PM

keepitcherry: Headso: I_C_Weener: Frozboz: Ok so what do we ordinary Americans need to do for this war?  Can I use my old yellow magnetic "support the troops" ribbon on the back of my SUV, or should I buy a new one?  What's the protocol here?

I was all for trading anti-war and pro-war signs with the libs of Fark, but no one took me seriously.  I've got lots of signs.  Only used twice.

people for this are not "libs" they are Obama apologists.

Fark is the mecca of Obama apologists.


No

Fark has a very diverse political community.

You only remember those who move you emotionally.

Those who are Obama supporters make you angry, so you are more apt to remember them. Those who are neutral about Obama are forgettable for you. Those who are anti-Obama sometimes make you happy, meaning that you will remember those people, but only if they are absolutely awesome.

Humans have better memories of those who disagree with them because they are a threat to your social beliefs. Hence, you remember your enemies much better than your friends, and you believe that your enemies outnumber you.
 
2013-09-03 02:32:06 PM
Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t


Why? getting nervous?
 
2013-09-03 02:33:19 PM

BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!


History doesn't suggest otherwise.

/I imagine you meant something other than "recourse"
 
2013-09-03 02:34:13 PM
Russia I'm not too concerned about. No matter how hard-ass of a stance Putin wants to take on anything, he can't deny a staggering amount of his citizens are unemployed heroin addicts and the military will sell anything to anyone for cents on the dollar. We're "broke", but not Russia-broke.
 
2013-09-03 02:34:14 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random

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

Smart weapons didn't get saddam. That came down to good old fashioned boots on the ground foot work. I very much doubt our booming runs would slow down the killing and violence in Syria. We are just going to make things worse.


Same with OBL. I'm wondering if we're waving the red flag of war while secretly sending in ST6 to take out Assad. Is there enough proof that he is responsible for gassing his own citizens? If so, then he should be the primary target in order to minimize collateral damage.

I also think that regardless of what the American people believe is right in terms of military action in Syria, we sure as hell would be looking for help if the tables were turned and our government was gassing innocent citizens.

/do unto others, yada yada yada
 
2013-09-03 02:34:24 PM
The differences between Bush and Obama is pretty  black and white.
 
2013-09-03 02:35:00 PM

vygramul: BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!

History doesn't suggest otherwise.

/I imagine you meant something other than "recourse"


whitenoiseinsanity.com
 
2013-09-03 02:36:09 PM
Republicans were sure Hades-bent on approving the war in Iraq.  So why are they not scrambling to approve this one?  Oh wait, I remember.  They are sore losers.
 
2013-09-03 02:36:12 PM

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?
 
2013-09-03 02:36:56 PM
The best part of this action against Syria is the morons comparing it to Iraq, who supported Iraq, defended Bush, insisted there WMDs in Iraq, thought it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan from a President with nothing but false pretenses and failure to actually kill the terrorist leader. These same people who would be calling Obama a pussy if he chose to do nothing, who has bipartisan support and will take action in the appropriate way, with minimal bodies on the ground, who was able to kill the leader of the 9/11 terrorist plot.

Keep calling it WWIII and keep trying to cover for one of the worst presidents in American history with false equivilence. I expect no less than abjuct hypocrisy, deflection, and projection from you all.
 
2013-09-03 02:39:54 PM

justtray: The best part of this action against Syria is the morons comparing it to Iraq, who supported Iraq, defended Bush, insisted there WMDs in Iraq, thought it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan from a President with nothing but false pretenses and failure to actually kill the terrorist leader. These same people who would be calling Obama a pussy if he chose to do nothing, who has bipartisan support and will take action in the appropriate way, with minimal bodies on the ground, who was able to kill the leader of the 9/11 terrorist plot.

Keep calling it WWIII and keep trying to cover for one of the worst presidents in American history with false equivilence. I expect no less than abjuct hypocrisy, deflection, and projection from you all.


Let them say what they want.  Obama is gonna look awesome in that flight suit.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:15 PM

Sentient: I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent AND BEAT THEIR ASSES.


FTFUSA!  USA!
 
2013-09-03 02:40:19 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.

Who? Syria? You kiddin me? You think Russia's gonna try something?

I'd rather not find out. We already lost the twin towers and a good bit of the 4th and 5th amendments...what else has to go boom here at home before people realize action have consequences?



I'm sure this is going to sound naive, but, isn't what this is about?  The action of Syria using CWs, banned by international law, have consequences, such as strategic military strikes by those who are capable (United States) with the intention of preventing CW attacks again?

Don't read into this as I'm for with a missle strike in Syra.  I'm skeptical.  I'd much prefer to have the evidence made public which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Syria's government was responsible, and that the UN, or some sort of coalition beyond the United States, will be leading the strike vs. the United States going alone.

Seems like a bad decision no matter what we do, but I view it as two basic questions; 1) Do I trust the govenment has enough evidence that the Syrian goverment used CWs against their own people?, and 2) Do I think that those who have the capability to deter the use of CWs again have the responsibility to use that capability?

I haven't made up my mind, and I don't envy anyone that has to and has an influence over the decision.
 
2013-09-03 02:40:33 PM
This thread is dildos.

Actually, this whole argument is dildos. Specifically, it's dildos who dumbly cheered Bush into Iraq without thinking and now somehow seem to believe that they can make up for it by doing a complete 180 on Syria even though it's pretty much exactly what SHOULD have happened in Iraq if Iraq really had WMDs like... you know.... Syria does.

/ dildos everywhere
 
2013-09-03 02:40:43 PM

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, Full Retard has been engaged.

The USA funding Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood "protesters" is more retarded .

ooooooooookay

Maybe funding is not the right word to use. I should have used the words 'arming' and 'training'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-fir st -ciatrained-rebel-unit-about-to-join-fighting-against-assad-regime-say s-obama-8796873.html

So you believe that everyone is in Al Qaeda and the MB, or just that we are incapable of knowing who represents whom?

Or is it a third option where we trained SOME people, but AQ/MB are also in play in the country?


They are not all MB or Al Qaeda. They have had infighting in the past between themselves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/27/syrian-rebels-also-f ig hting-al-qaeda-other-hard-li/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.
 
2013-09-03 02:42:27 PM

jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.


machoprogrammer: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yeah, helping out Al Qaeda linked rebels (by removing Saddam, thus giving them a place to go) was totally not what we did in Iraq.

I know, your team's guy is president now, so it is cool



jshine: bbfreak: Dear everyone comparing Syria to Iraq. You people are idiots. Also, this thread went downhill fast with the derp.

Yes, an unprovoked American attack on a Middle Eastern country predicated on WMDs: there's not a thread of similarity -- none at all.


Differences.

1: Syria actually has chemical weapons. Iraq not so much when we invaded them.

2: Syria's chemical weapons have NOTHING to do with Iraq's chemical weapons. Syria's chemical weapons were developed possibly with the help of Russia.

3: There isn't going to be any sort of ground war in Syria, it just isn't going to happen.

4: There is actual evidence that Syria's government used chemical weapons. The recently released French report is pretty interesting. Instead of the very weak/shoddy evidence constructed before the Iraq invasion.

Assad's sarin stockpiles, which the United States says were used in the Aug. 21 attack, reveal a "technological mastery" of chemical weapons, according to the French. The sarin is stored in binary form -- the two chemical precursors necessary to make the gas are kept separate and are only mixed immediately before use. This technological sophistication may be a key point when U.N. investigators release their report on the Damascus attack: If they find that the toxic agent used in the attack was an advanced form of sarin -- containing chemical stabilizers and dispersal agents -- the weapon will most likely have come from Syrian regime stockpiles.

French assessment rebuts claims that the Aug. 21 attack could have been the work of a rogue officer. France traces Syria's chemical weapons program to "Branch 450" of the innocuously named Center of Scientific Studies and Research, which Israel bombed in May. Only Assad and top members of his regime, the report says, have authority to order the branch to employ its deadly weapons. Nor does the report give credence to the idea of a rogue element within Branch 450 itself: The unit, it says, is "composed solely of Alawite military personnel ... [and] distinguished by a high level of loyalty to the regime."


5: The Arab League even wants something done about it. Granted, they want UN intervention but that isn't going to happen as long as Russia & China have national interests in Syria.

Now, I'm not saying we should strike Syria. I am highly skeptical of the use of military force in this situation but I do think in essence saying that Iraq & Syria are the same situations is disingenuous.
 
2013-09-03 02:42:30 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Go USA
 
2013-09-03 02:42:40 PM

paygun: justtray: The best part of this action against Syria is the morons comparing it to Iraq, who supported Iraq, defended Bush, insisted there WMDs in Iraq, thought it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan from a President with nothing but false pretenses and failure to actually kill the terrorist leader. These same people who would be calling Obama a pussy if he chose to do nothing, who has bipartisan support and will take action in the appropriate way, with minimal bodies on the ground, who was able to kill the leader of the 9/11 terrorist plot.

Keep calling it WWIII and keep trying to cover for one of the worst presidents in American history with false equivilence. I expect no less than abjuct hypocrisy, deflection, and projection from you all.

Let them say what they want.  Obama is gonna look awesome in that flight suit.


Chimpy McFlightsuit II Electric Boobaloo.
 
2013-09-03 02:42:51 PM

darth_badger: And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.


To be clear, you think we are specifically and knowingly arming AQ and the MB?
 
2013-09-03 02:43:37 PM

Rapmaster2000: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 820x615]
Go USA


Kenny Powers!
 
2013-09-03 02:43:55 PM
img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-03 02:44:21 PM
Lest anyone call those House Republicans "Obstructionist"
 
2013-09-03 02:44:59 PM

Linux_Yes: yea, after the smokescreen of 'yea we know for a fact sadam has WMD's'


We did know for a fact that he had them. We gave them to him. We're still talking about CW right? I get confused as to which wars they are considered WMDs for or not.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:10 PM
The check from Raytheon must have cleared.
 
2013-09-03 02:45:57 PM

Pimparoo: Shouldn't the people napalming schools full of kids get at least a little bit of the blame for "starting World War III"?


No, napalm and conventional warfare in general is OK. Kill as many of your own people as you like, just don't use chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-03 02:46:23 PM

skozlaw: This thread is dildos.

Actually, this whole argument is dildos. Specifically, it's dildos who dumbly cheered Bush into Iraq without thinking and now somehow seem to believe that they can make up for it by doing a complete 180 on Syria even though it's pretty much exactly what SHOULD have happened in Iraq if Iraq really had WMDs like... you know.... Syria does.

/ dildos everywhere


Do you have any idea what bombing Syria is going to do? The rebels are linked to al Qaeda and are just as bad, if not worse than, Assad.

Not to mention the collateral damage. "Dont kill civilians with chemical weapons or we will kill them with a bomb!"

But I get it, Obama is on your team. So go ahead and be partisan
 
2013-09-03 02:47:16 PM
Obama has one message to the Axis of Evil.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-03 02:47:40 PM
Tip for the anti-war side: make the effort to show at least a modicum of sympathy towards the innocent people being gassed and burned to death. When you ignore that and only respond with bumper sticker slogans, you come off as offensive as gun nuts that don't care about innocent shooting victims.
 
2013-09-03 02:47:46 PM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.


The only countries on earth that COULD bomb us back are the UK and China and neither of them has any reason to be that stupid.  Russia couldn't field a serious trans-pacific bombing run in this day and age, and everyone knows it.  Besides, their antiquated planes would never make it past the coast, and they damn well know it.

Or do you mean some sort of pseudo military action like terrorism?  Because that's a different story, one with mostly the same results.  There has been 1 foreign terrorist event in the united states in living memory.  1, and I think we established that the cost of doing business was rather high, that won't stop the next one, but it does put the bar pretty high for operational security and counter-espionage.  Which rules out most of the likely players.

Again, claiming this could start WWIII is at best alarmist, and generally just stupid.  It shows a lack of geopolitical issues, and a misunderstanding of what "world war" actually means.  There will never be another world war.  Or at least, there will never be a recorded history of another world war, because there won't be enough people left if it actually happens.  Everybody has nukes now, and once the first few fly, that's the end right there.
 
2013-09-03 02:47:57 PM

LasersHurt: darth_badger: And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.

To be clear, you think we are specifically and knowingly arming AQ and the MB?


Yes.
 
2013-09-03 02:48:12 PM

vygramul: BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!

History doesn't suggest otherwise.

/I imagine you meant something other than "recourse"


Yes, I did.  I meant "repercussions."  I am also easily distracted.
 
2013-09-03 02:49:10 PM

Headso: vygramul: BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!

History doesn't suggest otherwise.

/I imagine you meant something other than "recourse"

[whitenoiseinsanity.com image 750x499]


I'm not seeing rebel leaders being invited to the Obama White House.
 
2013-09-03 02:49:19 PM

Joe Blowme: Stupid is as stupid does.
If a nazi and Klansmen were in a fight to the death, you dont take sides... you wait for one to kill the other then take out the one thats left. TOTAL stupidity on both sides is nothing new.


But, but we are tired of waiting......

//Cool analogy by the way :)
 
2013-09-03 02:49:35 PM

umad: Linux_Yes: yea, after the smokescreen of 'yea we know for a fact sadam has WMD's'

We did know for a fact that he had them. We gave them to him. We're still talking about CW right? I get confused as to which wars they are considered WMDs for or not.


1988 Iraq may be slightly different than 2003 Iraq.

Hmmmm, i wonder why the U.S. would tolerate the use of CW in 1988?
 
2013-09-03 02:50:53 PM

Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.


lazy troll is lazy. this has nothing to do with "terror", aside from that feeling we have as our economy shiats itself from restarting the war engine.

can't have profits or a stable farking society or anything, sheesh.
 
2013-09-03 02:51:03 PM

darth_badger: LasersHurt: darth_badger: And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.

To be clear, you think we are specifically and knowingly arming AQ and the MB?

Yes.


We did it before, much to the former Soviet Union's disdain.
 
2013-09-03 02:51:33 PM
I won't say anything because certain Mods (as in the 60s TV series) love filter comments that disagree with their worldview.

In the words of the apostle James, "I HAVE THE POWERRRR!"
 
2013-09-03 02:52:28 PM

paygun: BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!

I don't know if you're aware of this but we're going to be greeted as liberators.


That never seems to work completely out for us in the Middle east.
 
2013-09-03 02:52:34 PM

I_C_Weener: JDAT: Once Obama utters the "I don't do what's popular, I do what's right" statement his transformation will be complete.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 283x178]
"I'm the decider."

"You don't bomb Syria with the Rebel Al-Qaeda intelligence you want, you bomb Syria with the Rebel Al-Qaeda intelligence you have"

 
2013-09-03 02:52:43 PM

machoprogrammer: muck1969: 
You are definitely naive. This is the same Obama that has the NSA spying on US citizens "to stop terrorism", then allows that data to be used in drug busts and copyright infringement. The difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric and gay marriage. That's about it


Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.  But presume that it's a non-issue for the President, that by supporting the opposite view of Republicans he can sacrifice this issue as a political loss while retaining ground on the issues he actually cares about.  Conspiracy spin possibly, but this is what happens when I mumble "why" instead of blindly accepting the sensationalism that news media barfs up.
 
2013-09-03 02:52:46 PM

bbfreak: Now, I'm not saying we should strike Syria. I am highly skeptical of the use of military force in this situation but I do think in essence saying that Iraq & Syria are the same situations is disingenuous.


jshine: Similarity and equality are different concepts.

 
2013-09-03 02:52:57 PM

darth_badger: LasersHurt: darth_badger: And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.

To be clear, you think we are specifically and knowingly arming AQ and the MB?

Yes.


Alex Jones' website is missing it's village idiot.
 
2013-09-03 02:53:18 PM

farkingatwork: Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.

lazy troll is lazy. this has nothing to do with "terror", aside from that feeling we have as our economy shiats itself from restarting the war engine.

can't have profits or a stable farking society or anything, sheesh.


Obviously, you have forgotten that day the towers fell.  I'll never forget.  When you forget what happened that day, an eagle cries.
 
2013-09-03 02:53:43 PM

Pimparoo: Tip for the anti-war side: make the effort to show at least a modicum of sympathy towards the innocent people being gassed and burned to death. When you ignore that and only respond with bumper sticker slogans, you come off as offensive as gun nuts that don't care about innocent shooting victims.


It's weird isn't it?  NIMBY humanitarianism?

/anti-war
 
2013-09-03 02:54:15 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: How can they all be this fargin' stupid?


Because the voters tend to vote "Team" and not "Intelligence". This is the end result of that.
 
2013-09-03 02:54:18 PM

Cyberluddite: cameroncrazy1984: I think you underestimate smart weapons. We're not sending B-52s into Laos, here.

Yeah, they've worked so will in Iraq.  No dead kids, no weddings blown up, nothing bad at all.  They're completely foolproof.


It's only because they generally work well to begin with that weddings getting blown up during an air campaign is actually news at this point, prior to smart weapons civilian casualties was the rule rather than the exception. Besides it not like those kids and weddings and so forth aren't going to die horribly due to gas attacks if nothing is done about it, chemical attacks tend to cause a lot more collateral damage then jdams after all.
 
2013-09-03 02:55:08 PM
WOW just wow.. Obama wants war. Obama is a Democrat. Pelosi also supports it. Didn't mean it got votes. So chillax.
 
2013-09-03 02:55:26 PM
Found it interesting this weekend when our local Republican congressman came out in support of Obama regarding Syria.  He hasn't agreed with him on anything, ever.
 
2013-09-03 02:55:53 PM
Boehner has now officially come out of the closet as a RINO.
 
2013-09-03 02:56:10 PM

muck1969: machoprogrammer: muck1969: 
You are definitely naive. This is the same Obama that has the NSA spying on US citizens "to stop terrorism", then allows that data to be used in drug busts and copyright infringement. The difference between Bush and Obama is rhetoric and gay marriage. That's about it

Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.  But presume that it's a non-issue for the President, that by supporting the opposite view of Republicans he can sacrifice this issue as a political loss while retaining ground on the issues he actually cares about.  Conspiracy spin possibly, but this is what happens when I mumble "why" instead of blindly accepting the sensationalism that news media barfs up.


Id say you are over thinking it. President Obama has proven himself to not exactly agree with Candidate Obama
 
kab
2013-09-03 02:56:29 PM
Oh goodie, another war effort.

Who stands to rake in a shiatload of money on this one?
 
2013-09-03 02:56:41 PM
So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?
 
2013-09-03 02:57:17 PM

vygramul: Headso: vygramul: BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!

History doesn't suggest otherwise.

/I imagine you meant something other than "recourse"

[whitenoiseinsanity.com image 750x499]

I'm not seeing rebel leaders being invited to the Obama White House.


that picture represents something bigger than a trip to the whitehouse, not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse are are just unfamiliar with what went on during that time. If it's the latter I can see why you made your post about not knowing any history that says this will comeback and bite us.
 
2013-09-03 02:57:21 PM
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.
 
2013-09-03 02:57:44 PM
OK, whose cousin owns the cruise missile factory?
 
2013-09-03 02:57:55 PM
...between the red line and the If I have a son he'd be Trayvon speeches, Obama is not quite the great orator many thought him to be.
 
2013-09-03 02:59:10 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.


you throw in the Zimm getting glitterbombed by a pro gay-marriage advocate during the interview & that's epic thread territory.
 
2013-09-03 03:00:17 PM

Isitoveryet: 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.

you throw in the Zimm getting glitterbombed by a pro gay-marriage advocate during the interview & that's epic thread territory.


And the pro marriage advocates are two hot chicks in yoga pants.
 
2013-09-03 03:00:20 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.


I heard that George Zimmerman is pro circumcision and public breastfeeding.
 
2013-09-03 03:00:24 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Boehner has now officially come out of the closet as a RINO.


And if you let a RINO out of the closet, then next they'll want a cookie...and gay marriage.  Right?
 
2013-09-03 03:00:32 PM
We should just all do what the pope said, and pray for the conflict to end.  That will solve everything!

/sarcasm
 
2013-09-03 03:01:00 PM

LasersHurt: keepitcherry: Take off the partisan blinders - how is Obama any different than Bush was? How can people STILL support this guy?

Are you high, or 14?

 
2013-09-03 03:01:14 PM
Those who don't learn from history will fight Charlie Wilson's war over and over.
 
2013-09-03 03:02:13 PM

BravadoGT: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?


Because it would not even be remotely in Russia's interest to start a war. Their military has been in shambles for decades. Their ability to project power outside their borders is severely limited. Their economy could not sustain a foreign war for very long, especially one with the entirety of NATO. Putin is a kleptocratic thug, but he's not crazy and he's not stupid. He wants power and wealth. Having Russia bombed back into the stone age accomplishes neither of those goals.

What on earth makes you think Russia would go to war with NATO over Syria? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Sure, Russia likes having Syria as someone to sell their weapons to, but Russia isn't exactly doing to spend money and blood to continue to receive a tiny fraction of the amount that a war would cost.
 
2013-09-03 03:05:46 PM

WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?


In a perfect world? We convince China & Russia to stop being assholes on the security counsel after the UN results come back in a damning way that suggests that Assad did indeed gas his own people. Then the Arab League, The United States, Turkey, and France put pressure on Syria while Russia talks Syria to at least give up its chemical weapons. In general a real solution will require Russia not being an asshole specifically, and multinational support.
 
2013-09-03 03:07:48 PM

muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.



Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?
 
2013-09-03 03:08:09 PM

machoprogrammer: Do you have any idea what bombing Syria is going to do? The rebels are linked to al Qaeda and are just as bad, if not worse than, Assad.


Which is why I think maybe it would be a good idea to start shooting some missiles at places we know or think have those chems in them. See, regardless of who ultimately wins, it's probably best for everyone else if as few of those weapons are still available as possible when this ends.

machoprogrammer: But I get it, Obama is on your team. So go ahead and be partisan


I'll assume from your insipid strawman that you cede the argument to me. Have a nice day.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:03 PM

Thrag: ....What on earth makes you think Russia would go to war with NATO over Syria? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Sure, Russia likes having Syria as someone to sell their weapons to, but Russia isn't exactly doing to spend money and blood to continue to receive a tiny fraction of the amount that a war would cost.



It has it's only Naval Port in the Mediterainian  there as well.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:04 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


oh please enlighten us oh great asker of wonder.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:49 PM

Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?


Don't forget all of those lobsters and caviar and champagne.  That's the kind of food rich people eat!

i80.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-03 03:10:23 PM

Headso: vygramul: Headso: vygramul: BravadoGT: you seem certain we will be able to just bomb them and walk away without any recourse.  That's cute!

History doesn't suggest otherwise.

/I imagine you meant something other than "recourse"

[whitenoiseinsanity.com image 750x499]

I'm not seeing rebel leaders being invited to the Obama White House.

that picture represents something bigger than a trip to the whitehouse, not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse are are just unfamiliar with what went on during that time. If it's the latter I can see why you made your post about not knowing any history that says this will comeback and bite us.


There's a difference between arming the rebels and simply disabling the CW capabilities of Assad. When it comes to history, not intervening can result in just as terrible a result as intervening. Maybe Assad then gives chemical weapons to someone who uses them on us. "Thanks, Obama, for not intervening when you had the chance!"

The likely result will be nothing. Just like it has been for Libya, and what it was for Libya '83.
 
2013-09-03 03:11:25 PM

WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?


Mind our own business and if a democracy rises from the ashes, open our doors for trade.

We should have established a policy the we would only trade with democratic nations. That would have solved most of our foreign policy and economic problems.
 
2013-09-03 03:11:36 PM

Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?


This is by far the stupidest thing on fark today.
 
2013-09-03 03:12:25 PM

justtray: This is by far the stupidest thing on fark today.


Don't sell him short, he's been posting all day.
 
2013-09-03 03:12:34 PM
Rapmaster2000:Don't forget all of those lobsters and caviar and champagne.  That's the kind of food rich people eat!

[i80.photobucket.com image 298x486]


More money is spent on food wasted on Masterchef in one episode than that.
 
2013-09-03 03:12:40 PM

Thrag: BravadoGT: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?

Because it would not even be remotely in Russia's interest to start a war. Their military has been in shambles for decades. Their ability to project power outside their borders is severely limited. Their economy could not sustain a foreign war for very long, especially one with the entirety of NATO. Putin is a kleptocratic thug, but he's not crazy and he's not stupid. He wants power and wealth. Having Russia bombed back into the stone age accomplishes neither of those goals.

What on earth makes you think Russia would go to war with NATO over Syria? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Sure, Russia likes having Syria as someone to sell their weapons to, but Russia isn't exactly doing to spend money and blood to continue to receive a tiny fraction of the amount that a war would cost.


For the most part I want to agree with you, but when Mr. Putin didn't take the Saudi offer I thought "that's crazy" so do you know what's his game?
 
2013-09-03 03:13:10 PM

LasersHurt: darth_badger: And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.

To be clear, you think we are specifically and knowingly arming AQ and the MB?


MB.... yes, Obama loves him some MB
AQ... i hope to allah not
 
2013-09-03 03:13:23 PM

mizchief: That would have solved most of our foreign policy and economic problems.


[notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2013-09-03 03:15:06 PM

mizchief: WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?

Mind our own business and if a democracy rises from the ashes, open our doors for trade.

We should have established a policy the we would only trade with democratic nations. That would have solved most of our foreign policy and economic problems.


hahaohwow.jpeg
 
2013-09-03 03:18:14 PM

mizchief: We should have established a policy the we would only trade with democratic nations. That would have solved most of our foreign policy and economic problems.


I don't even want to think about how much trade the US currently does with nondemocratic nations. Hell, stopping trade with just China would cause a lot of economic damage.
 
2013-09-03 03:19:24 PM

Rapmaster2000: Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?

Don't forget all of those lobsters and caviar and champagne.  That's the kind of food rich people eat!

[i80.photobucket.com image 298x486]


I love how there are still people out there who believe that the president or his wife personally sign for room service.
 
2013-09-03 03:20:25 PM

bbfreak: Syria's chemical weapons have NOTHING to do with were once Iraq's chemical weapons.


There.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:42 PM

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?
 
2013-09-03 03:22:48 PM

justtray: darth_badger: LasersHurt: darth_badger: And the CIA knows who they are working with. That's what makes it evil.

To be clear, you think we are specifically and knowingly arming AQ and the MB?

Yes.

Alex Jones' website is missing it's village idiot.


I'm sure we can help you find your way back, do you have a tag or something with your name on it?
 
2013-09-03 03:24:54 PM

Phinn: bbfreak: Syria's chemical weapons have NOTHING to do with were once Iraq's chemical weapons.

There.


Man, I wish there were some evidence to back that up.  I've got that same hunch.  It would be one of the great historical ironies.
 
2013-09-03 03:24:57 PM

justtray: Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?

This is by far the stupidest thing on fark today.


img19.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-03 03:25:35 PM

WippitGuud: mizchief: We should have established a policy the we would only trade with democratic nations. That would have solved most of our foreign policy and economic problems.

I don't even want to think about how much trade the US currently does with nondemocratic nations. Hell, stopping trade with just China would cause a lot of economic damage.


yes it's obviously not possible to do a quick 180 now, but after WWII we would have had a good shot at it. Biggest problem would have been the disputes when a country had what we needed but were controlled by dictators. There is no way US labor can compete with communist countries that have no reason to give a shiat about how the workers are treated.
 
2013-09-03 03:26:26 PM
www.politifake.org
 
2013-09-03 03:26:36 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
rka
2013-09-03 03:27:31 PM

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
 
2013-09-03 03:28:13 PM

WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?


3. The US does nothing, Israel does something, and America finds itself having to go into a much worse situation that a limited strike could have helped prevent.
 
2013-09-03 03:28:57 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 03:29:40 PM

mikemil828: WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?

3. The US does nothing, Israel does something, and America finds itself having to go into a much worse situation that a limited strike could have helped prevent.


4. The US performs strikes. Iran retaliates and hits Israel and the US targets in Syria. Russia gets militarily involved.

/while we're throwing out hypothetical scenarios.
 
2013-09-03 03:31:25 PM

Kit Fister: mikemil828: WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?



Everyone dies and there is finally peace on Earth.
 
2013-09-03 03:32:05 PM
 
2013-09-03 03:32:14 PM

Mock26: [img.photobucket.com image 382x600]

[img.photobucket.com image 288x504]


I don't know what this has to do with this thread, but I approve.
 
2013-09-03 03:32:27 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.


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.
 
2013-09-03 03:33:20 PM
 I remember watching Gen Clark talk about a plan to invade all of these problematic nations a few years ago...He perhaps got the order wrong, but I do believe it will probably end with Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB17j0a-R34
I'm guessing WWIII will come along a long time after that region goes through change, and after all of humanity are enslaved while being spoonfed soma. Hopefully, before they introduce solient green as high in fiber,protein, and delicious fat, there will be a WW3 that will look more like a global revolution.
/sobs.
 
2013-09-03 03:33:52 PM

Kit Fister: 4. The US performs strikes. Iran retaliates and hits Israel and the US targets in Syria becomes a smoking crater in the ground.


FTFY
 
2013-09-03 03:35:31 PM

mizchief: WippitGuud: mizchief: We should have established a policy the we would only trade with democratic nations. That would have solved most of our foreign policy and economic problems.

I don't even want to think about how much trade the US currently does with nondemocratic nations. Hell, stopping trade with just China would cause a lot of economic damage.

yes it's obviously not possible to do a quick 180 now, but after WWII we would have had a good shot at it. Biggest problem would have been the disputes when a country had what we needed but were controlled by dictators. There is no way US labor can compete with communist countries that have no reason to give a shiat about how the workers are treated.


Yeah, leave the entire Korean peninsula at the mercy of the Kims, that would have made our foreign policy problems much easier....
 
2013-09-03 03:37:23 PM

Rapmaster2000: farkingatwork: Rapmaster2000: paygun: I'm sure the anti-war protests will start any minute now, right?

http://ktla.com/2013/08/31/anti-war-demostrators-protest-u-s-militar y- action-in-syria/

Yeah, some homolibs protested yesterday.  What a bunch of pussies.  I STAND bravely with our Commander-in-Chief in the face of terror.

lazy troll is lazy. this has nothing to do with "terror", aside from that feeling we have as our economy shiats itself from restarting the war engine.

can't have profits or a stable farking society or anything, sheesh.

Obviously, you have forgotten that day the towers fell.  I'll never forget.  When you forget what happened that day, an eagle cries.


www.nahc4.com

/lol
 
2013-09-03 03:37:59 PM

advex101: Rapmaster2000: Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?

Don't forget all of those lobsters and caviar and champagne.  That's the kind of food rich people eat!

[i80.photobucket.com image 298x486]

I love how there are still people out there who believe that the president or his wife personally sign for room service.


And they don't notice the signature and name are the exact same pixels, just resized
 
2013-09-03 03:40:11 PM

fireclown: 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.


you've just delivered hostages to our enemies!!

what about a ICDRM

intercontinental double rainbow missle.
 
2013-09-03 03:41:14 PM

justtray: Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?

This is by far the stupidest thing on fark today.


I thought so too, and then I noticed


Account created:2013-07-18 05:05:26Submitted links approved:7 7 approved links in 6 weeks from a new account.  I find this.... noteworthy.
 
2013-09-03 03:41:51 PM

Thrag: BravadoGT: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

There are a LOT of proxies involved here.  If Syria/Hezbollah launch a deadly attack against Israel--what makes you so sure the USA and Russia will stay out of it?

Because it would not even be remotely in Russia's interest to start a war. Their military has been in shambles for decades. Their ability to project power outside their borders is severely limited. Their economy could not sustain a foreign war for very long, especially one with the entirety of NATO. Putin is a kleptocratic thug, but he's not crazy and he's not stupid. He wants power and wealth. Having Russia bombed back into the stone age accomplishes neither of those goals.

What on earth makes you think Russia would go to war with NATO over Syria? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Sure, Russia likes having Syria as someone to sell their weapons to, but Russia isn't exactly doing to spend money and blood to continue to receive a tiny fraction of the amount that a war would cost.


10 years ago, maybe.

Now, not so much. Putin's Russia has power that might even match the Soviet Union. When Putin took office, he wanted to remake Russia to be more like the USSR. Putin's Russia is confident and still very powerful.
 
2013-09-03 03:42:13 PM

WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?


Assad uses CW again and a breeze blows some across Turkey's (NATO's) border.  Damascus lands in Jordan and rolls all the way to Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-09-03 03:43:49 PM

hubiestubert: Weaver95: I just can't see any way where bombing Syria works out well for anyone.

Pretty damn much. Rebels, government forces, it's going to be an opening for every stripe of opportunist here and abroad for a feeding frenzy of looting, revenge, and outright raiding of equipment and cash. It's going to stir up a huge amount of chaos, and with only air strikes, it will force folks to do their killing up close and personal, and far from an exchange of power from one government to another. It's just going to make things a lot more personal, ugly, and cement these grudges for another century.


It's called "constructive chaos". Out of the messy fumes, a puppet will magically appear. I'm not pro assad or pro rebels btw, but anyone must admit that this was a long time coming, and the idea that the intervention's sole purpose is to free the hopelesss civilians and punish any use of WMDs (bio or chem) is hard to swallow.
 
2013-09-03 03:44:20 PM

Kit Fister: mikemil828: WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?

3. The US does nothing, Israel does something, and America finds itself having to go into a much worse situation that a limited strike could have helped prevent.

4. The US performs strikes. Iran retaliates and hits Israel and the US targets in Syria. Russia gets militarily involved.

/while we're throwing out hypothetical scenarios.


Iran ceases to exist and the remaining rubble of any value is hence forth known as Eastern Arabia.  Russia loses +10k troops due their own equipment killing them on day 1 and the conscripts start massive riots rather than die in the leaky death traps.
 
2013-09-03 03:45:35 PM

Linux_Yes: Smeggy Smurf: Weird, democrats screaming for war and republicans screaming for peace.
How about instead of killing Syrians we kill politicians instead?


if Mittens Rmoney had won last year, GOP would be screaming for war.   the GOP is afraid that Obama might do it right (which he will) and make bushie boy look stupid. AND this would increase Obama's popularity so that HILLARY can ride into the White House on Obama's coattail.

the thougth of that scares the living shiat out of GOP butts!!


Bombing Clinton style
 
2013-09-03 03:45:44 PM

WippitGuud: Rapmaster2000:Don't forget all of those lobsters and caviar and champagne.  That's the kind of food rich people eat!

[i80.photobucket.com image 298x486]

More money is spent on food wasted on Masterchef in one episode than that.


static.comicvine.com

waitwut?
 
2013-09-03 03:45:56 PM

soakitincider: obama is a piece of shiat


I give you 100% credibility that you are a solid judge of better men than you.
Additionally, I'm sure you have a haircut you could set your watch by. So, there's that.
 
2013-09-03 03:45:57 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?   Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it? Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?  Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?


Here's your answers. 12 years lecturing but not as an instructor, 5 years as a counsel and not a trial lawyer, his personal preference for privacy of academic record.  As for Michelle's job at Chicago Medical Center, you need to check your facts instead of relying on a FWD:FWD:FWD:.  I've already asked why on these questions and sought answers, this is what's called living outside of my bubble.  Something you should also consider since you are quick to dispense this advice.
 
2013-09-03 03:48:52 PM
I guess Obama is going for his second Nobel Peace Prize by bombing the shiat out of another country now...
 
2013-09-03 03:49:43 PM

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?
 
2013-09-03 03:50:54 PM

LasersHurt: Smeggy Smurf: Weird, democrats screaming for war and republicans screaming for peace.
How about instead of killing Syrians we kill politicians instead?

You're trying to argue that Republicans are pushing for "peace" in the thread about Boehner approving?


Dickhead and the RINOs are pushing for war.  The rest aren't
 
2013-09-03 03:52:48 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 started to suspect that many of those Freepers - creeped into this thread like ants cockroachesuckers to a picnic airport men's room... just to threadshiat with their absurd derp hatrid for brown people everyone else.
 
2013-09-03 03:56:33 PM
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
 
2013-09-03 03:57:36 PM

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?
 
2013-09-03 03:59:18 PM
Hopefully Putin gets replaced soon.

Saudis Go on Full Alert after Putin Threatens to Hit S. Arab in Reprisal for US Attack on Syria

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Main Intelligence Directorate, or the GRU in Russian (for Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye) reported that President Putin's orders this week to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for a "massive military strike" against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria has "stunned" the Saudis forcing them to go on "full war alert"
 
2013-09-03 03:59:35 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


Hmmm.... there's a thought.

If Syria gets pissed at the US, and gasses Israel... Israel obliterates Syria.
 
2013-09-03 03:59:43 PM

cman: 10 years ago, maybe.

Now, not so much. Putin's Russia has power that might even match the Soviet Union. When Putin took office, he wanted to remake Russia to be more like the USSR. Putin's Russia is confident and still very powerful.


No. Putin's Russia pretends to be confident and very powerful. They have enjoyed a temporary boom because of their oil and gas resources, but they have entirely squandered those gains mainly on personal corruption. Sure, their situation has improved from completely and utterly farked to just mostly farked. I'll grant that. However there is no possible way they could challenge NATO in conventional conflict.

Russia recently has been trying to modernize their military, but the progress is glacial. They can only spend a tiny fraction of what the US spends, and a pretty large slice of that relative pittance goes directly to corruption.

Here's a simple way to put things in perspective. They have exactly one aircraft carrier in service and zero in reserve. The US has 10 in service and two in reserve. Russia's military is sufficient to beat up on neighboring former soviet states and that's about it.
 
2013-09-03 04:00:40 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?


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.
 
2013-09-03 04:04:53 PM

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.


Russia was there too. Just not as prevalent.
And the US was there for Afghanistan.
 
2013-09-03 04:06:07 PM

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


If he bombed Scandinavia, he could have all the Nobel Peace Prizes he wants -- as well as all the other Nobel Prizes too.
 
2013-09-03 04:06:28 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 04:08:04 PM

Mock26: [img.photobucket.com image 382x600]

[img.photobucket.com image 288x504]


Outstanding.
 
2013-09-03 04:08:25 PM

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
 
2013-09-03 04:09:57 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 04:10:25 PM

neversubmit: Rush says, "Obama used the chemical gas in Syria!"

He is just asking questions. LOL

/sigh


This is an obvious ploy by Fartbama to deflect attention from Solyndra-gate.
 
2013-09-03 04:10:54 PM

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
 
2013-09-03 04:12:58 PM

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.


We wouldn't really be going to war with Syria. In the same vein, we were really going to war with Iraq or Vietnam. Instead, we would be going to war IN Syria. The same as going to war IN both Iraq and Vietnam. We absolutely cannot win or achieve victory the same way we could in most of the major wars the way conventional warfare works now. The goal of the Iraq "war" 2 was a war on terrorism. Really? That's like running for office and saying you are going to end world hunger and devising a plan. It isn't possible. In order for us to "win" something, we need to figure out 1) What are we winning exactly and 2) How we achiever that. We need to be realistic in our expectations and completely honest. Can we blow shiat up in Syria and remove Assad + cripple the military? Sure. What does that DO exactly? Are we there to do just that, or are we going to put boots on the ground and dick around in a so-called "rebuilding process" to help ensure some sort of western democracy gets put in place?
 
2013-09-03 04:13:31 PM

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.
 
2013-09-03 04:13:55 PM

WippitGuud: So our choices are...

1. The US attacks Syria, takes out as much of their military power as they can, and civilians die.

or

2. The US does nothing, Syria keeps all of its military power, and civilians die.


So... what's option 3?


thedisorderofthings.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 04:14:43 PM

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
 
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.
 
2013-09-03 05:20:50 PM

CrazyCracka420: 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


catmacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 05:24:51 PM
Must I do everything around here?

images.blu-ray.com
 
2013-09-03 05:34:42 PM
Don't think of this as killing Muslims.  Think of it as Heavenly Virgin Speed Dating introductions.
 
2013-09-03 05:39:17 PM
sphotos-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-09-03 05:40:31 PM

ManateeGag: Shostie: Will you f*cking stop it with this WWIII sh*t?

no, Obama's bombing someone, so it's WWIII and we're all going to be nuked!


I read that as '...and we're all going to get naked!' and thought "Well, that's one way to party."
 
2013-09-03 05:41:43 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


This is true. The Soviet-trained ex-pats who murdered all the non-Bolshevik anti-French leaders were definitely fighting an unjust war to turn a Buddhist-Catholic country of independent peasants and merchants into a copy of the Soviet Union.

The U.S. had its own interests at stake in that war (mainly global anti-Communism), but they largely aligned with the Vietnamese people's desires. Unfortunately, the South Vietnamese leadership were almost as bad for their constituents as the Viet Minh, and far less competent at organizing a military campaign.
 
2013-09-03 05:42:15 PM

WippitGuud: Doesn't the US periodically have live-fire exercises?


That's why I said rare and those live fire exercises are for artillery and similar types of weapons not big expensive weapons. I've shot literally dozens of exercise torpedoes down at AUTEC. I've never met anyone who had shot a warshot, even for testing purposes. Those types of weapons, while they do have a "Shelf-life", go back to the manufacturer to be refurbished and then put back into inventory. Technically we lease them until they are lost or expended.
 
2013-09-03 05:48:52 PM
Rand Paul and Kerry are going at it right now. Pretty damn entertaining and informative.
 
2013-09-03 05:57:01 PM

neversubmit: Hopefully Putin gets replaced soon.

Saudis Go on Full Alert after Putin Threatens to Hit S. Arab in Reprisal for US Attack on Syria

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Main Intelligence Directorate, or the GRU in Russian (for Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye) reported that President Putin's orders this week to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for a "massive military strike" against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria has "stunned" the Saudis forcing them to go on "full war alert"


Seriously? Look at the site you're referencing, and the fact that THEIR source is whatdoesitmean.com. Then visit that site. Tell me you're not serious.
 
2013-09-03 06:01:54 PM
Maybe, before we start firing hardware, we should try asking Assad to own up to what he did, apologize, and promise that he won't do it again.  And maybe ask him to negotiate with the non al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.

/not worse than any idea coming out of Washington just now
 
2013-09-03 06:04:40 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Um...did you even bother to read the article...?

yes. Did you?

Boehner says he supports the President. Then it goes on to say how he is going to have to sell it to his fellow republicans who are against it. The reason I ask you if you read it is because you are under the misguided assumption that the GOP wants this war. Where did you get this information? Right now there are more GOP voices decrying military action then are cheer-leading the President.

Let me take a wild guess, you can see into their hearts and know they really really want to bomb Syria?


No, they really, really want to bomb Iran and get all that oil, but they will take Syria as an appetizer.  Of course they are opposing Obama, they can't just turn around and support him, their base's heads would explode.  Nope, you wait, they will eventually vote for the strike after enough time has passed and they can snake around to it without being called a RINO.
 
2013-09-03 06:31:45 PM
There has never been any real chance of congress not approving this. It would be an astonishing precedent to set, and almost no-one wants to actually go there. The attack is also fully in line with republican thinking that they just cant afford to not agree, they know a repub president would be doing the same but harder.

Some of the more hysterical Obama-haters will vote no out of bile, and many on the left will vote no out or conscience (many having voted yes to iraq out of pathetic fear of public backlash). a few on the libertardian right will vote no out of principle too.
 
2013-09-03 06:37:41 PM

nekom: BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.

Well, if you say you're going to do something then don't you do tend to lose credibility.  I wish I understood enough about the situation to have an opinion, I have no idea who or what to root for here, a Syria where children are NOT being killed is probably too much to ask for just yet, sadly.


What credibility?
 
2013-09-03 06:40:12 PM

Weaver95: cman: nekom: BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.

Well, if you say you're going to do something then don't you do tend to lose credibility.  I wish I understood enough about the situation to have an opinion, I have no idea who or what to root for here, a Syria where children are NOT being killed is probably too much to ask for just yet, sadly.

This

Pretty much we're farked no matter what we do on it

So our solution to ending senseless killing is to...kill a bunch of people at random and hope that the heartless sons of biatches who have no souls running the syrian government are what...Gonna suddenly start behaving themselves?

The only thing we can do is make things worse.


THIS !
 
2013-09-03 06:44:24 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.


But they're JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
 
2013-09-03 06:45:25 PM

tirob: Maybe, before we start firing hardware, we should try asking Assad to own up to what he did, apologize, and promise that he won't do it again.  And maybe ask him to negotiate with the non al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.

/not worse than any idea coming out of Washington just now


If he denies that they used CW against the population despite evidence and disregards being told not to use CWs? Then what? What backs up your words if not action?
 
2013-09-03 06:53:32 PM
"Some factual information for you. Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?"
"How much?" said Arthur.
"None at all," said Mr. Prosser.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-03 07:01:03 PM
Maybe he will be the last Pope.
 
2013-09-03 07:13:20 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.

Oh jeebus christ!!

Really?! You're putting this at the feet of the Republicans? The Democrat President says that he wants to do and that he's going to do it either way and somehow this is a Republican's war?!

The only way I would support this is if the President said he was going to do this either way, which I think he has. But I still believe that politics end at the water's edge. The President is going to do this. Either he can do this with Congress's blessing or without it. For the good of the nation I think we need to go to war with a whole and intact effort.


TFA talks about Boehner, a leader of the GOP. We've had a few hundred threads with people pissed off at Obama for it. I think Weaver's just pissed off at the GOP for  supporting it.

/Gods know I am
//I hoped that the GOP would be the voice of reason. We truly are living in the end times.
 
2013-09-03 07:13:41 PM

Neighborhood Watch: muck1969: Did you ever wonder why a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer would defend NSA's domestic spying?  It's contradictory.


Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' was never a professor of anything or never tried a case as a lawyer?  Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor' ignores congress at will, or somehow didn't know that obamacare was a tax?

Did you ever wonder why 'a former constitutional professor and former civil rights lawyer' has no record of being EITHER ONE, and his entire academic career has been wiped/scraped clean so that no one can see it?

Did you wonder why Princess Moochelle (before she was crowned Queen) got a $300,000 a year no-show job at a Chicago hospital system?


Did you ever wonder... about the world outside of your little bubble?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-03 07:15:29 PM
Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.
 
2013-09-03 07:34:39 PM

Isitoveryet: umad: Linux_Yes: yea, after the smokescreen of 'yea we know for a fact sadam has WMD's'

We did know for a fact that he had them. We gave them to him. We're still talking about CW right? I get confused as to which wars they are considered WMDs for or not.

1988 Iraq may be slightly different than 2003 Iraq.

Hmmmm, i wonder why the U.S. would tolerate the use of CW in 1988?


When Saddam gassed the Kurds, I hadn't had a chance to vote in my first national election. Am I allowed to have different standards from the 'Boomers, or am I bound by their original determinations?
 
2013-09-03 07:36:44 PM

uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam


I still count 2 crappy wars, 1 completely unjustified on the GOP's side, vs 2 pretty much unavoidable wars, and 2 crappy wars, 1 mostly unjustifiable.... so... a tie? Win probably goes to the Dems anyway since their unjustifiable war didn't directly negatively impact their justifiable one?
 
2013-09-03 07:40:57 PM

vygramul: Isitoveryet: umad: Linux_Yes: yea, after the smokescreen of 'yea we know for a fact sadam has WMD's'

We did know for a fact that he had them. We gave them to him. We're still talking about CW right? I get confused as to which wars they are considered WMDs for or not.

1988 Iraq may be slightly different than 2003 Iraq.

Hmmmm, i wonder why the U.S. would tolerate the use of CW in 1988?

When Saddam gassed the Kurds, I hadn't had a chance to vote in my first national election. Am I allowed to have different standards from the 'Boomers, or am I bound by their original determinations?


you must like what i like.
 
2013-09-03 07:43:51 PM
So where's all the Regressives demanding to know "how you going to pay for this?"
 
2013-09-03 07:50:08 PM

Oerath: uber humper: In the last 100 years:

Republican President Wars:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Democrat President Wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

I still count 2 crappy wars, 1 completely unjustified on the GOP's side, vs 2 pretty much unavoidable wars, and 2 crappy wars, 1 mostly unjustifiable.... so... a tie? Win probably goes to the Dems anyway since their unjustifiable war didn't directly negatively impact their justifiable one?


Just to be clear, I think getting involved in Syria is a farking stupid idea. We had a brief window where we might have doen some good by getting involved and now we have completely missed it and it will be a clusterfark. Maybe not WWIII, but definitely not good. I just thought this comparison of GOP wars to Dem wars was stupid. Especially given that the people are trying to say the GOP is better, when most of the listed Dem wars were wars I think we were right to get into.
 
2013-09-03 07:56:22 PM

Oerath: Especially given that the people are trying to say the GOP is better, when most of the listed Dem wars were wars I think we were right to get into.


55,000 dead americans in Vietnam and 33,686 american deaths in Korea would like a word with you and your justified bullshiat.
 
2013-09-03 08:16:21 PM
I pray to the gods we do not do this thing. Period.
 
2013-09-03 08:32:50 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Oerath: Especially given that the people are trying to say the GOP is better, when most of the listed Dem wars were wars I think we were right to get into.

55,000 dead americans in Vietnam and 33,686 american deaths in Korea would like a word with you and your justified bullshiat.


This. And the biggest problem with Viet Nam? The farking french got us into it.
 
2013-09-03 08:36:20 PM

Kit Fister: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Oerath: Especially given that the people are trying to say the GOP is better, when most of the listed Dem wars were wars I think we were right to get into.

55,000 dead americans in Vietnam and 33,686 american deaths in Korea would like a word with you and your justified bullshiat.

This. And the biggest problem with Viet Nam? The farking french got us into it.


JFK was without question the single most failed president this country has ever seen.
 
2013-09-03 08:43:42 PM

the money is in the banana stand: tirob: Maybe, before we start firing hardware, we should try asking Assad to own up to what he did, apologize, and promise that he won't do it again.  And maybe ask him to negotiate with the non al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.

/not worse than any idea coming out of Washington just now

If he denies that they used CW against the population despite evidence and disregards being told not to use CWs? Then what? What backs up your words if not action?


Nothing does.  My proposed demarche has to have a credible threat to use military force behind it.

And Assad probably will deny using chemical weapons, and he probably will claim a right to use them prospectively.  But if he does, and we wind up sending over some missiles anyway in response, we will at least have tried to solve this by peaceful means first.  And you never know, he might agree to it.
 
2013-09-03 08:50:13 PM

tirob: the money is in the banana stand: tirob: Maybe, before we start firing hardware, we should try asking Assad to own up to what he did, apologize, and promise that he won't do it again.  And maybe ask him to negotiate with the non al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.

/not worse than any idea coming out of Washington just now

If he denies that they used CW against the population despite evidence and disregards being told not to use CWs? Then what? What backs up your words if not action?

Nothing does.  My proposed demarche has to have a credible threat to use military force behind it.

And Assad probably will deny using chemical weapons, and he probably will claim a right to use them prospectively.  But if he does, and we wind up sending over some missiles anyway in response, we will at least have tried to solve this by peaceful means first.  And you never know, he might agree to it.


How about we let Russia deal with it in exchange for some favors, like sending back some Russian citizens we've grabbed from friendly countries and convicted of things like hacking?
 
2013-09-03 08:56:49 PM

Kit Fister: tirob: the money is in the banana stand: tirob: Maybe, before we start firing hardware, we should try asking Assad to own up to what he did, apologize, and promise that he won't do it again.  And maybe ask him to negotiate with the non al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.

/not worse than any idea coming out of Washington just now

If he denies that they used CW against the population despite evidence and disregards being told not to use CWs? Then what? What backs up your words if not action?

Nothing does.  My proposed demarche has to have a credible threat to use military force behind it.

And Assad probably will deny using chemical weapons, and he probably will claim a right to use them prospectively.  But if he does, and we wind up sending over some missiles anyway in response, we will at least have tried to solve this by peaceful means first.  And you never know, he might agree to it.

How about we let Russia deal with it in exchange for some favors, like sending back some Russian citizens we've grabbed from friendly countries and convicted of things like hacking?


I don't think that Moscow is going to be inclined to help us out here; they've got too much business at stake in Syria to be an honest broker.  Although as long as Obama is in St. Petersburg this week, I suppose it couldn't hurt to try to bring Syria up with Putin at the summit.  The worst that can happen is that Putin rebuffs him.
 
2013-09-03 09:14:25 PM

Sentient: I said this in the last Syria thread, but I'm so annoyed by this drumbeat of inevitability that I'm going to re-post.

Turn whatever evidence you have over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them.

Meanwhile, use all of our fancy stealth tech to carpet-bomb Syria, regime & rebel areas alike, with medical supplies & food. Make like Syria's borders don't even exist. If you really must blow something up, target aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. Cap it off by throwing a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps.

Completely disregarding Syria's sovereignty make Assad look powerless, while any kind of military strike he survives will just make him look stronger.It's a clear answer, which should save face re: Obama's "red line", and such an approach should sail through congress. If the UN and Arab States want to biatch about 'unilateral action' or colonialism, let them; it'll come off as completely ridiculous. And hell, in the end, we might actually help a kid or two.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response?


Beautiful idea. Very sentient of you :)
 
2013-09-03 09:50:17 PM

Klom Dark: Sentient: I said this in the last Syria thread, but I'm so annoyed by this drumbeat of inevitability that I'm going to re-post.

Turn whatever evidence you have over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them.

Meanwhile, use all of our fancy stealth tech to carpet-bomb Syria, regime & rebel areas alike, with medical supplies & food. Make like Syria's borders don't even exist. If you really must blow something up, target aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. Cap it off by throwing a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps.

Completely disregarding Syria's sovereignty make Assad look powerless, while any kind of military strike he survives will just make him look stronger.It's a clear answer, which should save face re: Obama's "red line", and such an approach should sail through congress. If the UN and Arab States want to biatch about 'unilateral action' or colonialism, let them; it'll come off as completely ridiculous. And hell, in the end, we might actually help a kid or two.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response?

Beautiful idea. Very sentient of you :)


The problem is that this wouldn't work and you know it. Sending aid and supplies to the refugees is great, and a project for thered cross. Want to get involved in that? Please do.

But medical supplies and money don't stop wars or change dictators' ways. And they sure don't stop the use of chemical weapons. What lesson does that teach? That they can get goodies after being vile? That the regime bent on destroying them is left to keep gassing and blowing them up while they get a little temporary comfort?

I'm sorry, but this is not a situation which can be helped with love and flowers and rainbows.

I advocate staying out of it because our country inevitably pays the price and forces our troops to abide by ROEs that don't let us actually finish the job. Add to that the fact that this is a real hardened army and we are talking a longer conflict than we would be willing to fight. Finally, we remove Assad and get out, what happens in our wake? Something like Libya? Lebenon? Egypt? How many have been killed after supposed "peaceful" overthrows?

If I thought there was a way we could just deal with chemical weapons cleanly and without opening up a whole new war, I'd say lets do it. But too many people arguing for us to just take out the weapons don't understand the nature of taking out said weapons: to do so safely would require either large groups of men on the ground to capture and safely dispose of the weapons, or the use of the type of ordnance which is neither precision nor clean that would burn it all off (thermobarics would be perfect) without scattering it around as conventional ordnance would.

Such ordnance would also impose a wide swath of destruction and kill lots of civilians around the sites: Assad has already moved weapons sites into civilian areas.

So what are we going to do? Risk killing civilians to take out those sites? How are we going to verify the sites contain said weapons? I doubt Assad will let us just walk in and check first.

I may not know all about the politics, but I know war. And if we go in, at the least we kill more civilians and do more to destabilize the whole fight than we would otherwise. From what I read in the news, Russia has promised to strike Saudi Arabia if we strike Syria, so presuming they go through with that, now we have the blood of an ally on our hands. And what about Iran? They launch an attack on Israel, its unlikely to be deathless on Israel's side and lots of casualties will happen on Iran's side. More blood.

I believe violence and war is justified in some cases. But right now, any "lesson" we can teach about the use of chemical weapons will be drowned out by our using a sledge hammer to pound in a finishing nail. Better that we use every diplomatic course and try to come off as wanting to see the conflict genuinely ended than being the bully who uses a pretense to go in and hammer someone we don't like.

I want us to sit this one out. I want to put troops in Turkey and other neighbors of Syria and protect refugees and get them clean water and food and shelter and medical care. I want to do everything to force Russia to drop Assad and get China to help us paint him into a corner smartly.

I don't want to blow shiat up unless we have no other choice, and so far all we've done is flap our gums and wave our arms without doing much at all to really make it unpalletable for them to keep up this shiat.

This is still my opinion only. No words or thoughts expressed here are intended to be on anyone else's behalf, and any mistakes of politics are my own based in what I know of the situation. I neither desire nor care enough to become a middle east expert just to argue on fark threads about when it is and isn't okay to invade a country and kill people with bombs and shiat. My bottom line: haven't hurt my people, I don't care about you or desire to kill you. Touch me and mine, I will turn you into ashes. Seems pretty damn fair to me.
 
2013-09-03 09:53:10 PM
As a Canadian, I hope Congress does go for it. 100,000 people have died so far, and Syria's leader is using chemical weapons on his population. Surgical strikes on military targets and maybe one on his house.
Put in a peace keeping force, start elections, etc.

"I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response? "
These people are slaughtering each other. With guns. You can't go in there, wave the white flag, and send someone who is behaving badly to time out. I agree you don't want to bomb randomly. Go for weapons and fuel. And if they are really bad, things like electricity.
 
2013-09-03 09:56:55 PM

Don't Lag Me Bro: As a Canadian, I hope Congress does go for it. 100,000 people have died so far, and Syria's leader is using chemical weapons on his population. Surgical strikes on military targets and maybe one on his house.
Put in a peace keeping force, start elections, etc.

"I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response? "
These people are slaughtering each other. With guns. You can't go in there, wave the white flag, and send someone who is behaving badly to time out. I agree you don't want to bomb randomly. Go for weapons and fuel. And if they are really bad, things like electricity.


So write your elected representative and suggest that he commit Canadian forces to this. We'll you guys handle it.
 
2013-09-03 09:57:34 PM
www.innerhappiness.com
 
2013-09-03 09:58:27 PM
www.innerhappiness.com
 
2013-09-03 09:58:55 PM
Oh man. These comments are getting old, and the war hasn't even started yet.
 
2013-09-03 10:07:33 PM

Kit Fister: I pray to the gods we do not do this thing. Period.


I share this prayer and believe it will go unanswered.
 
2013-09-03 10:10:55 PM
sphotos-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net

Big Time
 
2013-09-03 10:12:52 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [sphotos-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 400x265]

Big Time


STOP THESE FOOLS!
 
2013-09-03 10:16:39 PM

Don't Lag Me Bro: As a Canadian, I hope Congress does go for it. 100,000 people have died so far, and Syria's leader is using chemical weapons on his population. Surgical strikes on military targets and maybe one on his house.
Put in a peace keeping force, start elections, etc.

"I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, we should act like a parent. Why are we not at least considering some non-deadly response? "
These people are slaughtering each other. With guns. You can't go in there, wave the white flag, and send someone who is behaving badly to time out. I agree you don't want to bomb randomly. Go for weapons and fuel. And if they are really bad, things like electricity.


Fine, you pay for your righteous indignation Candian fool. Otherwise, STFU.
 
2013-09-03 10:47:39 PM

vygramul: 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.

But they're JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!


That was a cryptic comment, vygramul.

Are you saying that we should "target and shoot " them, or that we shouldn't?


/clarification needed
 
2013-09-03 10:47:45 PM
Team America World Police was not a documentary. We can stay home this time, jerks.
 
2013-09-03 10:51:01 PM
WWIII? Oh come on. There is no way things could spin out of control in the middle east. Our modern day politicians are all reasonable level-headed folk, everything will turn out hunky-dory.
 
2013-09-03 10:59:23 PM
Forgive me, but I just returned from several days happily away from civilization, and a cursory search was unfruitful, so I'll ask here:

Has anyone even pretended to present any substantial evidence that AssadCo was the culprit here?

Obama? Kerry? McCain? Boehner?

Some foreign authority?

Anyone?
 
2013-09-03 11:25:14 PM

Amos Quito: Forgive me, but I just returned from several days happily away from civilization, and a cursory search was unfruitful, so I'll ask here:

Has anyone even pretended to present any substantial evidence that AssadCo was the culprit here?

Obama? Kerry? McCain? Boehner?

Some foreign authority?

Anyone?

No, but it makes the domestic spying stories fade away

 
2013-09-03 11:31:42 PM

DominaNY: Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.


So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.
 
2013-09-03 11:36:33 PM

Kahabut: DominaNY: Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.

So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.


Specifically, USING CW is, not merely possessing, or we would have bombed them years ago.
 
2013-09-03 11:42:25 PM

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Amos Quito: Forgive me, but I just returned from several days happily away from civilization, and a cursory search was unfruitful, so I'll ask here:

Has anyone even pretended to present any substantial evidence that AssadCo was the culprit here?

Obama? Kerry? McCain? Boehner?

Some foreign authority?

Anyone?


No, but it makes the domestic spying stories fade away



True, and speaking of spying, do you suppose the NSA has managed to gather some "dirt" on some of our members of Congress over the years?

Properly applied, said "dirt" could really help to win some votes on this and other matters.
 
2013-09-03 11:45:44 PM

vygramul: Kahabut: DominaNY: Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.

So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.

Specifically, USING CW is, not merely possessing, or we would have bombed them years ago.


Yet there still seems to be no substantial evidence that AssadCo was actually the culprit here, is there?

In fact, all evidence would seem to be exculpatory, wouldn't it?

Yet here we go...

Why?
 
2013-09-03 11:46:24 PM

Kahabut: So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.


Uh, you DO realize that the CWs that the US possesses are completely unusable, and pose more of a danger to anyone trying to assemble them than they do to anyone they're being used on.

They've also destroyed 89.1% of all of their cold war stockpile, with the rest due to be destroyed before 2021.
 
2013-09-03 11:51:05 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Kahabut: DominaNY: Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.

So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.

Specifically, USING CW is, not merely possessing, or we would have bombed them years ago.

Yet there still seems to be no substantial evidence that AssadCo was actually the culprit here, is there?

In fact, all evidence would seem to be exculpatory, wouldn't it?

Yet here we go...

Why?


Strange. The guys who told us to go fark ourselves over Iraq don't agree with your assessment.
 
2013-09-04 12:05:21 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random

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


Why can't Assad be targeted personally? Am I misunderstanding the capability of drones and smart missiles?
 
2013-09-04 12:16:15 AM
Can you imagine a man giving his life for a movie role? Arguably, that's what Heath Ledger did. Would he have been drawn down that dark path if not for the joker character? No one will ever know.

WWIII was the cold war I thought, technically we're on IV.
 
2013-09-04 12:19:01 AM

hardinparamedic: Kahabut: So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.

Uh, you DO realize that the CWs that the US possesses are completely unusable, and pose more of a danger to anyone trying to assemble them than they do to anyone they're being used on.

They've also destroyed 89.1% of all of their cold war stockpile, with the rest due to be destroyed before 2021.


Destroying?

God, I hope they're not just wasting all of that precious fluoride when they could be dumping it in our water.


Revealed: UK Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria
UK accused of 'breath-taking laxity' over export licence for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride


Just think of all the teeth that could be saved!
 
2013-09-04 12:19:09 AM

mediablitz: BravadoGT: nekom: Does he have the votes?  It would make him look pretty stupid if he said that and didn't.  Not that he hasn't made an ass of himself before

He'll get them.  Or not.  It doesn't matter--at this point, it's more about Obama's ego now, so it's going to happen.

You really have no control over yourself, do you?

Actually I agree that saving Obama's ego does play a huge role in this.

 
2013-09-04 12:21:25 AM

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.

President Trayvon would not be happy.

 
2013-09-04 12:22:57 AM

hardinparamedic: Kahabut: So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.

Uh, you DO realize that the CWs that the US possesses are completely unusable, and pose more of a danger to anyone trying to assemble them than they do to anyone they're being used on.

They've also destroyed 89.1% of all of their cold war stockpile, with the rest due to be destroyed before 2021.


You do realize that doesn't change my point in the least?  No of course you don't, because you are a moron.  You are more interested in trolling and bringing up irrelevancies.

I'll bet you can't even coherently restate my point, because you don't know what it was.  Go white knight the LGBT threads some more, maybe we can witness your coming out on fark, everyone but you already knows.
 
2013-09-04 12:26:08 AM

kg2095: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: kill a bunch of people at random

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

Why can't Assad be targeted personally? Am I misunderstanding the capability of drones and smart missiles?


A Head of State calling a "hit" on another Head of State is considered unsportsmanlike conduct.

Dying in war is the job of the peons.

Now get to work, peon.
 
2013-09-04 12:39:23 AM

vygramul: Kahabut: DominaNY: Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.

So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.

Specifically, USING CW is, not merely possessing, or we would have bombed them years ago.


It's not that I don't understand, it's that no nation has the right to dictate what any other nation does.  Just because you have a bigger military, doesn't mean you get to dictate world policy on things like which weapons of death are allowed.
 
2013-09-04 12:45:45 AM

Kahabut: vygramul: Kahabut: DominaNY: Our military should attack and destroy their chemical plants that manufacture sarin, etc. And there are Arab nations that would participate with us. We need to keep a red line vs chemical uses, and to ensure they are not provided to enemies of US, such as Al Quaeda, etc.

WMD can NOT be tolerated. Period. No matter what happened elsewhere. There are constant terrorist threats vs.America.

So you want to authorize bombings on american soil?  Because most WMD in the world exist here.  CW production is supposedly not going on, but we still have huge stockpiles so that's not working for you either.

Specifically, USING CW is, not merely possessing, or we would have bombed them years ago.

It's not that I don't understand, it's that no nation has the right to dictate what any other nation does.  Just because you have a bigger military, doesn't mean you get to dictate world policy on things like which weapons of death are allowed.


www.bitlogic.com
Does that mean everyone else should STFU about how we tortured people?
 
2013-09-04 12:50:12 AM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Bombing Iraq will start WWIII!
Bombing Afghanistan will start WWIII!
Bombing Libya will start WWIII!
I swear I see that wolf right over there!

Eventually someone is gonna start bombing us back.