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.

(WorldNetDaily)   How screwed up are U.S. politics right now? I think I can get you to read WND and agree with Pat Buchanan   (wnd.com) divider line 145
    More: Sad, Pat Buchanan, Syrian War, United States, WND, Obama, u.s. politics, Reform Party, Israeli Air Force  
•       •       •

2255 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 9:18 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 05:29:29 AM
Nope
 
2013-09-04 06:51:29 AM

enry: Nope

 
2013-09-04 08:16:38 AM
If your reason for doing something is to spite Obama, then even if I think we should do the same thing, we do not agree.

Or in other words:

Karac: enry: Nope

 
2013-09-04 08:17:20 AM
WND?

Karac: enry: Nope


/#nope
 
2013-09-04 08:28:28 AM

Karac: enry: Nope

 
2013-09-04 08:28:33 AM

Karac: enry: Nope

 
2013-09-04 08:30:57 AM
I agree that we shouldn't strike Syria, but not for the juvenile reasons given by old Pat.

I wonder if that guy is ever going to grow up.
 
2013-09-04 08:49:47 AM
Nuh 'uh.
 
2013-09-04 09:02:44 AM
I like it!

But power companies are going to hate it.

/and really, I don't like it
//go to hell pat
 
2013-09-04 09:19:00 AM
How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.
 
2013-09-04 09:19:59 AM

xanadian: WND?

Karac: enry: Nope

/#nope


Nope
 
2013-09-04 09:21:45 AM
You think wrong.

The "stopped watch" principle doesn't hold for people like WND contributors who make it a point to be wrong on purpose. Even if their opinion is "technically" right they'll go out of their way to make sure that their reasoning is specious enough that the underpinning argument for it is still wrong.

/ in other words, bite my shiny, pimpled ass, submitter
 
2013-09-04 09:21:49 AM

bencoon: xanadian: WND?

Karac: enry: Nope

/#nope

Nope


Nope and change
 
2013-09-04 09:22:51 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: bencoon: xanadian: WND?

Karac: enry: Nope

/#nope

Nope

Nope and change


Nope.
 
2013-09-04 09:22:56 AM

RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.


I wouldn't know, because I'm not clicking on a WND link.  So the headline's wrong.  I may or may not disagree with him, but I can't know because I will  never visit that site again.
 
2013-09-04 09:25:38 AM
If Pat Buchanan says no war, then Farkers say:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-04 09:26:20 AM

MaestroQuark: RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.

I wouldn't know, because I'm not clicking on a WND link.  So the headline's wrong.  I may or may not disagree with him, but I can't know because I will  never visit that site again.


He's basically saying we shouldn't intervene in Syria... Because Obama would be embarrassed if we don't and fark that guy.
 
2013-09-04 09:26:23 AM

RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.


There can be multiple routes to the same correct conclusion.  Pat took the one through Derpville.

If Turkey (NATO) and Israel (obvious) got involved, how long do you think it would be before we got dragged in and/or the conflict expanded out of control?
 
2013-09-04 09:27:05 AM

rvesco: If Pat Buchanan says no war, then Farkers say:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x213]


No, we're saying he should stay at the kiddie table and let the adults sort it out.
 
2013-09-04 09:27:26 AM
Lying and bullsh*tting forever has consequences, WND / subby.

#boy #wolf
 
2013-09-04 09:27:43 AM
I watched some of the Syria hearings yesterday, and I could only come to one conclusion.

Why aren't Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle and Wolfowitz in prison for war crimes?
 
2013-09-04 09:28:09 AM

enry: Nope

 
2013-09-04 09:29:36 AM

Diogenes: RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.

There can be multiple routes to the same correct conclusion.  Pat took the one through Derpville.

If Turkey (NATO) and Israel (obvious) got involved, how long do you think it would be before we got dragged in and/or the conflict expanded out of control?


The problem is, something HAS to be done. The Syrian government can't be allowed to possess chemical weapons, and the rebels sure as fark can't be allowed to get their hands on them. There is an ACTUAL, REAL national security threat here for once.
 
2013-09-04 09:30:02 AM
Yep
 
2013-09-04 09:30:44 AM

enry: Nope

 
2013-09-04 09:31:09 AM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-04 09:31:27 AM
Whew I made it to the 5th sentence. I am afraid that I am becoming acclimated to the Derp.

Seriously I can see why our country sucks so bad. People actually make decisions based on if it makes the president 'look good'. Instead of the merits of the situation  and if it is or is not the right thing to do.
 
2013-09-04 09:32:01 AM
not falling for that line again subby.  last time i clicked a WND link, my puppy died
 
2013-09-04 09:32:19 AM

Jackson Herring: Diogenes: RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.

There can be multiple routes to the same correct conclusion.  Pat took the one through Derpville.

If Turkey (NATO) and Israel (obvious) got involved, how long do you think it would be before we got dragged in and/or the conflict expanded out of control?

The problem is, something HAS to be done. The Syrian government can't be allowed to possess chemical weapons, and the rebels sure as fark can't be allowed to get their hands on them. There is an ACTUAL, REAL national security threat here for once.


As I understand it, that's the exact premise that sold the GOP.  Their intentions, as I understand it, is to neutralize and eliminate the Syrian government's ability to launch CWs, and nothing more.

That said, I really wish that they'd extend the attacks to the rebel side as well and eliminate whatever launchers and artillery that the rebels have as well.  That way, it can't be said that we're picking sides, because, good lord, there's no good guys over there in that fight.
 
2013-09-04 09:37:04 AM

Jackson Herring: Diogenes: RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.

There can be multiple routes to the same correct conclusion.  Pat took the one through Derpville.

If Turkey (NATO) and Israel (obvious) got involved, how long do you think it would be before we got dragged in and/or the conflict expanded out of control?

The problem is, something HAS to be done. The Syrian government can't be allowed to possess chemical weapons, and the rebels sure as fark can't be allowed to get their hands on them. There is an ACTUAL, REAL national security threat here for once.


The same could be said of us and our nuclear arsenal.  Think about it.  We're the lone (well, that's debatable, any more) superpower in the world...we've show a propensity for invading other countries with whom we have no strategic interest, a complete disregard for world opinion, we've ranked quite low on the 'treatment of prisoners' list for quite some time...there's evidence that we torture political prisoners, the integrity of our court system is in question, our economic system is one of the more corrupt in the world....and we possess enough nuclear weapons to level the face of the planet....wouldn't you be concerned about us, too?
 
2013-09-04 09:37:38 AM

Infernalist: As I understand it, that's the exact premise that sold the GOP.  Their intentions, as I understand it, is to neutralize and eliminate the Syrian government's ability to launch CWs, and nothing more.

That said, I really wish that they'd extend the attacks to the rebel side as well and eliminate whatever launchers and artillery that the rebels have as well.  That way, it can't be said that we're picking sides, because, good lord, there's no good guys over there in that fight.


That is the complication here, of course. For once, Both Sides Actually Are Bad. The one thing we need to do is completely destroy the chemical weapons and their delivery systems, and also do it in a way that helps neither side. How we do that, who the fark knows.
 
2013-09-04 09:38:39 AM

dragonfire77: The same could be said of us and our nuclear arsenal.


really? the current leader of the US has demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets?
 
2013-09-04 09:39:32 AM
I've never seen that site before. And I never will again. As soon as I saw the phrase "simple-minded statements of an untutored president" I had to bail.

You may disagree with the guy, but the POTUS is non uneducated.
 
2013-09-04 09:40:08 AM

Infernalist: That said, I really wish that they'd extend the attacks to the rebel side as well and eliminate whatever launchers and artillery that the rebels have as well. That way, it can't be said that we're picking sides, because, good lord, there's no good guys over there in that fight.


Brother in-law has spent many years in the middle east in the Army and one day at a holiday gathering he said "you cannot trust anyone over there" and he has been in more countries than he can even talk about. It sounds like a tough state of affairs over there where there really is no side we can clearly support or trust yet at the same time we cannot run their country for them.
 
2013-09-04 09:40:29 AM

Jackson Herring: Infernalist: As I understand it, that's the exact premise that sold the GOP.  Their intentions, as I understand it, is to neutralize and eliminate the Syrian government's ability to launch CWs, and nothing more.

That said, I really wish that they'd extend the attacks to the rebel side as well and eliminate whatever launchers and artillery that the rebels have as well.  That way, it can't be said that we're picking sides, because, good lord, there's no good guys over there in that fight.

That is the complication here, of course. For once, Both Sides Actually Are Bad. The one thing we need to do is completely destroy the chemical weapons and their delivery systems, and also do it in a way that helps neither side. How we do that, who the fark knows.


Well, the easiest way to do it would be to eliminate all Artillery units and missile vehicles on both sides.  CWs rounds and rockets are mostly useless without delivery vehicles.  Granted, if Assad was TRULY determined to use CWs after that, he could use special equipment to modify his tanks to fire them, but that'd be suicide on his part.

Once all launching vehicles(or most, at least) are destroyed, then it degrades back down to a conventional conflict and we can step back again and let them continue their civil conflict at their own pace again without interference.
 
2013-09-04 09:40:35 AM
ok so either pigs are flying, or its a blue moon, but i sort of agree with Pat.. and then i get to the comment section.. and i sooo want to disagree with Pat just out of spite. Good god, the folks who hang out there and comment are such Pieces of Crap.
 
2013-09-04 09:41:08 AM
The whole Syria thing is, besides the whole human tragedy thing, fascinating politics.  I have a rabid Obama-hating conservative former-military-guy on my Facebook (high school classmate from a small school... we're all Facebook friends).  So he's randomly angry. One of his last posts was:

Hey POTUS! Explain this to me; you say your credibility is not on the line, but then state its the int'l community, Congress and the United States credibility on the line. So you're not representing the US anymore? Why do you stand there and point your finger at us from a distance? Why do you always try to elevate yourself above us and don't see yourself as one of us? The last I checked you are not King by divine right.

So, I try and suss out of him, y'know, what does he want in Syria.  Nothing, rockets, boots... what?  I know conservatives (and liberals) all over the map on it.  The answer....

F****d if I know.

Which is totally fair mind you.  Honestly, I'm a relative-lefty, and I'm also pretty much "F****d if I know".  But, it's fascinating to see so much anger build up for something that people are so ambivalent about.
 
2013-09-04 09:41:21 AM

Jackson Herring: Diogenes: RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.

There can be multiple routes to the same correct conclusion.  Pat took the one through Derpville.

If Turkey (NATO) and Israel (obvious) got involved, how long do you think it would be before we got dragged in and/or the conflict expanded out of control?

The problem is, something HAS to be done. The Syrian government can't be allowed to possess chemical weapons, and the rebels sure as fark can't be allowed to get their hands on them. There is an ACTUAL, REAL national security threat here for once.


I'm really only responding to Pat and his nonsense.

But while I do agree with you, I'm not sure how that's accomplished.  And irrespective of whether it was Assad or the rebels who employed them, I don't know how put a stop to a tactic that's being used in the service of a much more complicated scenario.

I'm not necessarily saying nothing should be done.  But I don't know how we address it short of ending someone else's civil war.  Again.  If it comes down to it, I'd prefer inaction to disastrous action.
 
2013-09-04 09:42:52 AM
NO SYRIAN WAR TO SAVE OBAMA'S FACE!farm4.staticflickr.comMore of the same from the racist right.
 
2013-09-04 09:43:25 AM
Turkey can't go anywhere near this.  All they can do is accept refuges and hold their border.  If they attacked Assad drops chemical weapons on Istanbul and Ankara.   He said he would.

We're blessed with a Turkish universtity exchange student in house so we know more about this than the average "something must be done about something!" US citizen
 
2013-09-04 09:43:30 AM
^^^ that's some nice formatting you got there, Lou.
 
2013-09-04 09:43:37 AM

Diogenes: Jackson Herring: Diogenes: RobertBruce: How is he wrong? It's exactly what both Israel and Iran want. Neither of them want to be seen starting a war all by themselves.

There can be multiple routes to the same correct conclusion.  Pat took the one through Derpville.

If Turkey (NATO) and Israel (obvious) got involved, how long do you think it would be before we got dragged in and/or the conflict expanded out of control?

The problem is, something HAS to be done. The Syrian government can't be allowed to possess chemical weapons, and the rebels sure as fark can't be allowed to get their hands on them. There is an ACTUAL, REAL national security threat here for once.

I'm really only responding to Pat and his nonsense.

But while I do agree with you, I'm not sure how that's accomplished.  And irrespective of whether it was Assad or the rebels who employed them, I don't know how put a stop to a tactic that's being used in the service of a much more complicated scenario.

I'm not necessarily saying nothing should be done.  But I don't know how we address it short of ending someone else's civil war.  Again.  If it comes down to it, I'd prefer inaction to disastrous action.


It's not that hard, really.  Just eliminate their ability to use CWs.
 
2013-09-04 09:43:49 AM

Diogenes: But I don't know how we address it short of ending someone else's civil war


The problem is, it's not that simple. There are implications not only for our own national security but for global terrorism as a whole. I have no farking idea what the right thing to do is, if there even is one, but I am pretty sure that it isn't "nothing".
 
2013-09-04 09:44:14 AM

Infernalist: That way, it can't be said that we're picking sides, because, good lord, there's no good guys over there in that fight.


Which is why our only concern is and should be the chems, the hell with all the other weapons being used. Neither side in this is going to be our friend regardless of who wins so we shouldn't be doing anything that helps either one, we should be attacking chem sites because we have the opportunity to reduce the possible weapons that could be used against us or allies in the future.

I care fark all about the rebels, they're a bunch of religious nutjobs seeded with terrorists and I care fark all about the Assad regime becasue he's a tyrannical monster, but this is an opportunity to go in and knock out some weapon that could be turned on us in the future and to pass that up is just simply pure idiocy.

It's their civil war, let them fight it out and whoever wins wins. Militarily, our interest here should be in reducing the potential for a future attack on us and allies and nothing else more. I'm all for offering humanitarian aid to civilians, but outside the chems, this is Syria's fight and Syria needs to fight it.
 
2013-09-04 09:44:44 AM

Reverend Monkeypants: Turkey can't go anywhere near this.  All they can do is accept refuges and hold their border.  If they attacked Assad drops chemical weapons on Istanbul and Ankara.   He said he would.

We're blessed with a Turkish universtity exchange student in house so we know more about this than the average "something must be done about something!" US citizen


Except Turkey has already volunteered the use of their own military assets in case of military strikes into Syria.  They did that 'yesterday', along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
 
2013-09-04 09:45:10 AM
Brilliant thinking, Pat. The best reason to undertake a monumental national military effort isn't based on the nation as a whole, but your opinion of one man in that nation. Sounds like solid thinking to me.
 
2013-09-04 09:45:41 AM

skozlaw: Infernalist: That way, it can't be said that we're picking sides, because, good lord, there's no good guys over there in that fight.

Which is why our only concern is and should be the chems, the hell with all the other weapons being used. Neither side in this is going to be our friend regardless of who wins so we shouldn't be doing anything that helps either one, we should be attacking chem sites because we have the opportunity to reduce the possible weapons that could be used against us or allies in the future.

I care fark all about the rebels, they're a bunch of religious nutjobs seeded with terrorists and I care fark all about the Assad regime becasue he's a tyrannical monster, but this is an opportunity to go in and knock out some weapon that could be turned on us in the future and to pass that up is just simply pure idiocy.

It's their civil war, let them fight it out and whoever wins wins. Militarily, our interest here should be in reducing the potential for a future attack on us and allies and nothing else more. I'm all for offering humanitarian aid to civilians, but outside the chems, this is Syria's fight and Syria needs to fight it.


This sums it up nicely, I think.
 
2013-09-04 09:46:09 AM
I am against attacking Syria but only the biggest of assholes would think it is about Obama trying to save face. So, no subby you can't get me to agree with him.
 
2013-09-04 09:47:06 AM
Nopey McNoperson.
 
2013-09-04 09:48:00 AM

Infernalist: It's not that hard, really.  Just eliminate their ability to use CWs.


I'm not satisfied we even know why "they" are yet.

Secondly, you really haven't learned anything from history.  If we could do it that surgically I doubt we'd be having this debate at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report