Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Right Wing News)   Five reasons not to bomb Syria. "Because Obama is for it" conspicuously absent   (rightwingnews.com) divider line 127
    More: Obvious, bomb Syria, Obama, Syrian War, Taliban in Afghanistan, Reggie Love, home runs  
•       •       •

809 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 08:47:25 AM  
How about because we don't really feel like it?

I understand we want to discourage the use of chemical weapons, and when they are used against a group that doesn't hate us, I'll be all for stepping in.
 
2013-09-04 09:01:04 AM  
Yee Haa is not a foreign policy.
 
2013-09-04 09:03:27 AM  

Because there is already a designated place to put accused war criminals on trial. Use it.


www.marksilverberg.com
 
das
2013-09-04 09:04:10 AM  
How about not bombing them because it is just wrong.
 
2013-09-04 09:06:08 AM  
Don't worry anti-strike people, the deaths from the next gassing will make this one look like a walk in the park.
 
2013-09-04 09:06:12 AM  

das: How about not bombing them because it is just wrong.


Moral absolutes went out the window with Nietsche.

Kant is dead.
 
2013-09-04 09:06:37 AM  
Was Rightwing News for the invasion of Iraq?  Why should we take them seriously?
 
2013-09-04 09:07:05 AM  
I would say reason #3 is damn close to "because Obama is for it".

Sooooooo much passive-agressiveness in that article.  How are these people having strokes on a daily basis?
 
2013-09-04 09:08:08 AM  

BalugaJoe: Yee Haa is not a foreign policy.


B-b-b-but Bush!

Assad is determined to turn Syria into Carthage if he can't run the joint. No Hague for him :(
 
2013-09-04 09:08:36 AM  
The Death Brothers, McCain and Graham, are pushing for on-the-ground training of the rebels and apparently the CIA is dropping the ball, so the work might go to DoD.
The 1st Armored Division is already in Jordan, cleaning their hookah pipes.
 
2013-09-04 09:10:12 AM  

Delay: Because there is already a designated place to put accused war criminals on trial. Use it.
[www.marksilverberg.com image 475x300]


You do realize that to get Assad to The Hague we'd have to go in there and get him, which would be a far more involved intervention than is currently being discussed, right?
 
2013-09-04 09:12:09 AM  
I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?
 
2013-09-04 09:13:26 AM  
Add these 5 reasons to the list.
#6. bombing might cause the loss of control of the some of the remaining chemical weapons Assad has to AQ backed rebels.  That would suck.
#7. We gain nothing!
#8. we'd be helping a hated and dangerous enemy!
#9. I'd be proof Obama learned nothing from the past.
 
2013-09-04 09:13:31 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


Depends.  Did the women and children die because of an attack by Assad, or a subsequent "Shock and Awe" bombing of a non-military target city?

/I'd say 100,000 would do it.
 
2013-09-04 09:14:49 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


Several hundred thousand.
 
2013-09-04 09:18:49 AM  

qorkfiend: Delay: Because there is already a designated place to put accused war criminals on trial. Use it.
[www.marksilverberg.com image 475x300]

You do realize that to get Assad to The Hague we'd have to go in there and get him, which would be a far more involved intervention than is currently being discussed, right?


Given the "evidence" available, Assad might stand trial willingly to embarrass the Hell out of the US.
 
2013-09-04 09:19:30 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


5 trillion.
 
2013-09-04 09:20:24 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


You go first, soldierboy. The rest of us give no farks. Not our fight, not our problem. Why must we dance to the tune the Saudi's have queued up for us?

fark all that shiat.
 
2013-09-04 09:20:33 AM  
Why do they want to deny me the bomb camera footage to eat read meat by and for the release of knuckle babies?  Why?
 
2013-09-04 09:22:19 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: das: How about not bombing them because it is just wrong.

Moral absolutes went out the window with Nietsche.

Kant is dead.


But he was a real puissant.
 
2013-09-04 09:24:08 AM  
We just spent a decade killing as many members of Al-Qaeda as humanly possible in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" until george w. bush started dropping bombs, you idiots.
 
2013-09-04 09:25:08 AM  
A lot of people want a strike, if only to see the military-grade "GoPro" camera footage from drones and missiles.
 
2013-09-04 09:26:05 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


Let's see, quantitative analysis showed a net of approximately 400,000 deaths as an indirect consequence of the iraq war due primarily to lack of medical attention, so let's say: around that number.  It's cold, it's unpleasant, but acknowledging just violent deaths is unreasonable.
 
2013-09-04 09:26:15 AM  
dont worry folks
we are americans
and we only kill bad people

im guessing there are at least 150,000 bad people in syria
 
2013-09-04 09:26:17 AM  

Savage Belief: omnibus_necanda_sunt: das: How about not bombing them because it is just wrong.

Moral absolutes went out the window with Nietsche.

Kant is dead.

But he was a real puissant.


i.ytimg.com

*Howls* of derisive laughter, Bruce!
 
2013-09-04 09:26:37 AM  

coeyagi: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

5 trillion.


That number is funny because liberals freak out over a five deaths from a mentally unstable man with an AR-15, but they couldn't give two shiats when 1,400 are killed in matter of minutes.
 
2013-09-04 09:28:52 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


Anti strike liberal here.  There is nothing we can do about "dead children and women" in Syria.  It's about time we started thinking about live women and children in America.  Charity begins at home.

Now here are two questions for pro strike wingnuts:  When are you going to enlist?  How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to fund a war in Syria?

img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-04 09:30:13 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

Anti strike liberal here.  There is nothing we can do about "dead children and women" in Syria.  It's about time we started thinking about live women and children in America.  Charity begins at home.

Now here are two questions for pro strike wingnuts:  When are you going to enlist?  How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to fund a war in Syria?

[img196.imageshack.us image 640x823]


When we are adding a trillion to the debt every year what is a few billion more really?
 
2013-09-04 09:31:55 AM  

Outrageous Muff: coeyagi: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

5 trillion.

That number is funny because liberals freak out over a five deaths from a mentally unstable man with an AR-15, but they couldn't give two shiats when 1,400 are killed in matter of minutes.


Dude, I want to agree, but one cannot keep derogatorily generalizing about who is and is not opposed to the potential strike and expect to gather support.  Unless one is a troll, in which case proceed.
 
2013-09-04 09:33:39 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


That's a pretty great summary of your naivete. Assad has been killing thousands with conventional weaponry for a while now. Even if we destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons it won't stop him from killing thousands more. If we get involved history shows that won't stop killing either and we'll be piling up bodies of our own due to "collateral damage."

Opposing the use of chemical weapons is a valid point. If you think US involvement is going to save lots of lives or make this conflict more peaceful you are absolutely and totally wrong.
 
2013-09-04 09:34:05 AM  

Outrageous Muff: coeyagi: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

5 trillion.

That number is funny because liberals freak out over a five deaths from a mentally unstable man with an AR-15, but they couldn't give two shiats when 1,400 are killed in matter of minutes.


The first makes me rage.  The second terrifies me.  But, I can't tell if I'm liberal or not.
 
2013-09-04 09:34:11 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Anti strike liberal here.  There is nothing we can do about "dead children and women" in Syria.  It's about time we started thinking about live women and children in America.  Charity begins at home.


That argument sounds familiar, oh yeah! That was the excuse for Rwanda. Only a million people died there and they didn't even have access to WMDs.
 
2013-09-04 09:35:52 AM  

odinsposse: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

That's a pretty great summary of your naivete. Assad has been killing thousands with conventional weaponry for a while now. Even if we destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons it won't stop him from killing thousands more. If we get involved history shows that won't stop killing either and we'll be piling up bodies of our own due to "collateral damage."

Opposing the use of chemical weapons is a valid point. If you think US involvement is going to save lots of lives or make this conflict more peaceful you are absolutely and totally wrong.


Our involvement isn't really about saving lives, though that'll likely be a bonus effect.  Our involvement is mostly about reminding Syria and the world that blatant brazen use of CWs will result in a vicious retaliation from the global community.
 
2013-09-04 09:37:16 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Anti strike liberal here.  There is nothing we can do about "dead children and women" in Syria.  It's about time we started thinking about live women and children in America.  Charity begins at home.

That argument sounds familiar, oh yeah! That was the excuse for Rwanda. Only a million people died there and they didn't even have access to WMDs.


Oh, yes, and invading Rwanda would have stopped that, too!

Now when are you going to enlist?  How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?  If the answers are never and none, then shut the fark up about going to war.
 
2013-09-04 09:39:18 AM  

Infernalist: odinsposse: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

That's a pretty great summary of your naivete. Assad has been killing thousands with conventional weaponry for a while now. Even if we destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons it won't stop him from killing thousands more. If we get involved history shows that won't stop killing either and we'll be piling up bodies of our own due to "collateral damage."

Opposing the use of chemical weapons is a valid point. If you think US involvement is going to save lots of lives or make this conflict more peaceful you are absolutely and totally wrong.

Our involvement isn't really about saving lives, though that'll likely be a bonus effect.  Our involvement is mostly about reminding Syria and the world that blatant brazen use of CWs will result in a vicious retaliation from the global community.


If it was from the global community that would be one thing, but it seems the global community isn't interested, just us.
 
2013-09-04 09:42:04 AM  

Tomahawk513: Dude, I want to agree, but one cannot keep derogatorily generalizing about who is and is not opposed to the potential strike and expect to gather support.  Unless one is a troll, in which case proceed.


As a conservative, you have an easy argument against it. In fact there is list in the link above. As a liberal what's the excuse? "That money should be used at home!" "We can't solve the world's problems?" This is an obvious war crime, not some neo-con push to invade a country for oil.

odinsposse: That's a pretty great summary of your naivete. Assad has been killing thousands with conventional weaponry for a while now. Even if we destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons it won't stop him from killing thousands more. If we get involved history shows that won't stop killing either and we'll be piling up bodies of our own due to "collateral damage."


It's a civil war. Legally, Syria is allowed to defend his government. It's also very hard to prove that they purposely targeted civilians with mortars or bombs. The use of chemical weapons is easy to prove and doing it in the early morning on a residential area makes it even easier.
 
2013-09-04 09:42:16 AM  

EvilEgg: Infernalist: odinsposse: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

That's a pretty great summary of your naivete. Assad has been killing thousands with conventional weaponry for a while now. Even if we destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons it won't stop him from killing thousands more. If we get involved history shows that won't stop killing either and we'll be piling up bodies of our own due to "collateral damage."

Opposing the use of chemical weapons is a valid point. If you think US involvement is going to save lots of lives or make this conflict more peaceful you are absolutely and totally wrong.

Our involvement isn't really about saving lives, though that'll likely be a bonus effect.  Our involvement is mostly about reminding Syria and the world that blatant brazen use of CWs will result in a vicious retaliation from the global community.

If it was from the global community that would be one thing, but it seems the global community isn't interested, just us.


Which, IMO, is a real shame.
 
2013-09-04 09:42:58 AM  

Infernalist: Our involvement isn't really about saving lives, though that'll likely be a bonus effect.  Our involvement is mostly about reminding Syria and the world that blatant brazen use of CWs will result in a vicious retaliation from the global community.


I get that and OM should be using that argument instead of saying "We need to intervene to save the lives of women and children! So they can be shot or blown up a short while from now"
 
2013-09-04 09:43:40 AM  

Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?


I'm not a liberal so maybe my answer doesn't qualify but here I go.

Something needs to be done right now about the killing of the women and children but not by the United States.  America isn't and shouldn't be the worlds police force, If it were, Barack Obama is Barney Fife. (can someone photoshop that for me please?)  This is where the UN needs to step up it's game.  Americans, at most, need to lead the charge to get the UN to act, what the hell else is more important than this for the UN?

Also there is some speculation the gassing was done by the rebels to get someone else to do there dirty work.  The AQ backed rebels certainly have more to gain in that scenario.  And i wouldn't be surprised that evidence to that fact is being suppressed.  It wouldn't be the first time Americans were intentionally led astray by this or other administrations.  Do you remember a very recent story about a youtube video that caused a small protest to get out of hand?  A total fabricated lie they almost got away with.
To be clear, there is a lot of speculation, unknowns,  more than just a lack of trust, and a huge questions of responsibilities.  I just don't think the USA has any business being involved.
 
2013-09-04 09:45:01 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Oh, yes, and invading Rwanda would have stopped that, too!

Now when are you going to enlist?  How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?  If the answers are never and none, then shut the fark up about going to war.


That's fine. Is there a number, that if reached, would cause you to change your opinion? A million? Two million? Do you have to see mass graves?
 
2013-09-04 09:47:29 AM  

odinsposse: Infernalist: Our involvement isn't really about saving lives, though that'll likely be a bonus effect.  Our involvement is mostly about reminding Syria and the world that blatant brazen use of CWs will result in a vicious retaliation from the global community.

I get that and OM should be using that argument instead of saying "We need to intervene to save the lives of women and children! So they can be shot or blown up a short while from now"


Well, they're tailoring the message to appear more concerned with civilians than the CWs.  It's not that they're lying, it's just that they're emphasizing what they think will sound better to the audience they have targeted.  It's just a political thing.
 
2013-09-04 09:48:31 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Oh, yes, and invading Rwanda would have stopped that, too!

Now when are you going to enlist?  How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?  If the answers are never and none, then shut the fark up about going to war.

That's fine. Is there a number, that if reached, would cause you to change your opinion? A million? Two million? Do you have to see mass graves?


In other words, an outrage troll.
 
2013-09-04 09:51:30 AM  

Outrageous Muff: coeyagi: Outrageous Muff: I've got a question for anti strike liberals. How many dead children and women are you comfortable with Assad gassing before you say something needs to be done?

5 trillion.

That number is funny because liberals freak out over a five deaths from a mentally unstable man with an AR-15, but they couldn't give two shiats when 1,400 are killed in matter of minutes.


Libs libs libs libs Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs  Libs libs libs libs

Seriously, just stop.  You look like a buffoon with your "libs" sh*t.

Anyway, the point here is called the f*cking rabbit hole.  You, like a sucker, are being led down it.  Where it ends?  With American soldiers getting killed.  Why are we the world's god damn police?  10 years ago, I was all for it.  Now, no, it does NOTHING for anyone.  It creates terrorists who want to kill us because we bombed Syria.  Nevermind it was because we wanted to help Muslims; their f*cking propaganda machine is better than our bombs.
 
2013-09-04 09:52:56 AM  

Infernalist: Well, they're tailoring the message to appear more concerned with civilians than the CWs.  It's not that they're lying, it's just that they're emphasizing what they think will sound better to the audience they have targeted.  It's just a political thing.


But it's such obvious BS it should be called out. If you're trying to manipulate me you gotta be a little more suave than that. How about a nice dinner? Maybe a little more sweet talk about international protocol.
 
2013-09-04 09:54:23 AM  

odinsposse: Infernalist: Well, they're tailoring the message to appear more concerned with civilians than the CWs.  It's not that they're lying, it's just that they're emphasizing what they think will sound better to the audience they have targeted.  It's just a political thing.

But it's such obvious BS it should be called out. If you're trying to manipulate me you gotta be a little more suave than that. How about a nice dinner? Maybe a little more sweet talk about international protocol.


Seriously, though, most Americans are going to swallow the 'humanitarian' angle.  Just because you can see through it doesn't mean that most Americans can.
 
2013-09-04 09:54:35 AM  

born_yesterday: Outrageous Muff: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Oh, yes, and invading Rwanda would have stopped that, too!

Now when are you going to enlist?  How much more in taxes are you willing to pay?  If the answers are never and none, then shut the fark up about going to war.

That's fine. Is there a number, that if reached, would cause you to change your opinion? A million? Two million? Do you have to see mass graves?

In other words, an outrage troll.


No no, he's got a point. You really should work out a number for yourself. Sure it's grisly, but the alternative is just winging it, so shutup and multiply.
 
2013-09-04 09:55:35 AM  
I'm actually sorta fine with the libertarian idea of nonintervention in general (personally I think the US should adopt a "Prime Directive" philosophy of not interfering with the internal politics of foreign states etc.) but if you can't see how the use of NBC's is an issue for the international community- even if the international community itself is too busy playing politics to clean up a mess that will surely spread- I have no respect for you. If you have alternative methods of dealing with this situation than bombing Assad's forces, fine please argue your case (I'm very open to alternative ideas) but if your alternative is to sit on your thumbs than go fark yourself you dishonest D-hating jackass.
 
2013-09-04 09:55:46 AM  
There is no good answer here, and I really hope Obama doesn't push for a strike solely to save face. We need to accept that our bluff was called and we'll lose face, because pride isn't worth more than staying out of a sinkhole like that. We need to work to stop the use of chemical weapons, but when there are no good guys to work with and every step will inevitably result in our enemies getting stronger and hating us more, we need to stay out of it. It sucks, but at some point we need to just step back and say "We're not the police, no one else wants to do this, it's just going to keep sucking there but it won't be our fault."
 
2013-09-04 09:56:21 AM  
Not that it needs to be anywhere near as low as OMs.
 
2013-09-04 09:57:14 AM  

Infernalist: odinsposse: Infernalist: Our involvement isn't really about saving lives, though that'll likely be a bonus effect.  Our involvement is mostly about reminding Syria and the world that blatant brazen use of CWs will result in a vicious retaliation from the global community.

I get that and OM should be using that argument instead of saying "We need to intervene to save the lives of women and children! So they can be shot or blown up a short while from now"

Well, they're tailoring the message to appear more concerned with civilians than the CWs.  It's not that they're lying, it's just that they're emphasizing what they think will sound better to the audience they have targeted.  It's just a political thing.


How is it "a political thing"? Chemical weapon use is illegal by international law. It's also logical that if Assad is willing to use it once, he's willing to use it again. If there is no punishment for the use of WMDs then it's pretty logical assumption that thousands more will be killed by WMDs. Am I wrong? Are you arguing that Assad will stop using a weapon that, lets be honest, is very effective at killing lots of people very quickly.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report