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.

(The Epoch Times)   To prevent the use of chemical weapons, Obama is planning a war which might cause the proliferation and loss of control of chemical weapons...Not sure they thought this one through   (theepochtimes.com) divider line 178
    More: Ironic, nuclear proliferation, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Free Syrian Army, boots on the ground, opposition groups, Department of Defense, 2011-2012 Syrian uprising  
•       •       •

2211 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2013 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 08:40:44 AM
Just give both sides more guns.
Then walk away.
 
2013-09-04 08:41:48 AM
 "might cause the proliferation and loss of control of chemical weapons "

I guess blowing them up with big bombs falls under that.
 
2013-09-04 08:42:49 AM
Yes, we should be concerned because no country has ever launched tactical strikes against another country without the entire infrastructure collapsing.

And because those weapons are in such GOOD hands now....
 
2013-09-04 08:43:28 AM
Yeah, cuz they are under such tight control now, with the civil war and all.

Also, incinerating them is probably a great way to prevent them from being used.
 
2013-09-04 08:45:25 AM
So basically we're farked if we do and farked if we don't
 
2013-09-04 08:47:20 AM
When shooting some cruise missiles into Syria fails to accomplish anything, escalation will be necessary. Kerry let it slip out that ground troops weren't ruled out. Later he tried backtracking, but there it is, but it's not like Iraq, except it is.
 
2013-09-04 08:48:08 AM
I don't know why the U.S. is trying to intervene: Both sides are reprehensible, helping the rebels will likely only further the islamists cause, and rebels will just turn around and shiat all over the U.S. once they've won. The Arabs and Persians are always biatching about Western interference in their affairs, so here's the perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate such interference is not necessary.
 
2013-09-04 08:48:08 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: So basically we're farked if we do and farked if we don't


Hey everybody we're going to get laid!
 
2013-09-04 08:48:27 AM
News Reporter: Team America has once again pissed off the entire world by blowing up half of Cairo. Syria
 
2013-09-04 08:49:03 AM
Hmmmm, I guess both sides are bad.....
 
2013-09-04 08:50:04 AM
Subby and the Epoch Times can suck a fat cock.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:28 AM
F*ck them.  Let them handle their own shiat.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:29 AM

neversubmit: IdBeCrazyIf: So basically we're farked if we do and farked if we don't

Hey everybody we're going to get laid pegged!


This sounds closer to the truth

oryx: When shooting some cruise missiles into Syria fails to accomplish anything, escalation will be necessary. Kerry let it slip out that ground troops weren't ruled out. Later he tried backtracking, but there it is, but it's not like Iraq, except it is.


The cruise missiles they plan on using are set it and forget it older style rockets from the 90's. So essentially you have to be sure that your target is there, and hope they haven't moved it or moved civilian assets in lest they be vaporized as well. The newer style seek and finds require some target acquisition information from ground based sources, so it wouldn't shock me in the least if there were some Navy Seal, Army Ranger, CIA ghosts already on the ground right now.
 
2013-09-04 08:50:51 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: So basically we're farked if we do and farked if we don't


Maybe, maybe not.  This article is more of an opinion piece that assumes worst case scenario of strikes leaving vast stockpiles of WMD intact and AQ taking over the country.

In other words, the exact kind of thing nobody paid attention to before Iraq.
 
2013-09-04 08:51:21 AM
So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......
 
2013-09-04 08:51:22 AM
I seem to remember that a large convoy of trucks was monitored leaving Baghdad and entered Syria about a week before the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what those trucks were carrying?
 
2013-09-04 08:52:04 AM

Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......


If not, it means Saddam gassing the Kurds was a sound basis for war.
 
2013-09-04 08:54:13 AM
On further examination, it seems this would warrant ground troops. Get cracking, Latvia!
 
2013-09-04 08:54:54 AM

The Muthaship: Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......

If not, it means Saddam gassing the Kurds was a sound basis for war.


What kind of world do we live in where the current actions of Democrats are justifying the actions of the Bush administration while at the same time ignoring their own anti-Bush rhetoric?  History, as she unfolds, is a cruel mistress.
 
2013-09-04 08:55:29 AM

meatball: I seem to remember that a large convoy of trucks was monitored leaving Baghdad and entered Syria about a week before the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what those trucks were carrying?


Nothing seeing as we blew up his shiat well before that right at the end of Desert Storm. Like literally we flattened his military and destroyed every accounted for weaponized chemical weapons. It's possible he might have still had some of the precursors but even that's a stretch.

One thing people forget to realize when talking about chemical weapons is that often many of these chemicals are used in industrial processes. Hell, you all likely have chemical weapons underneath your kitchen sink right now.
 
2013-09-04 08:57:05 AM

Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......


I know this is a trolling user name but its a viable question now, Syria doesn't have plants to produce these weapons and it would be hilarious for the UN inspectors to go in there and find all those Iraqi stockpiles. If would be even funnier if US troops roll in there and find all the weapons proving Bush wasn't wrong forcing everyone to eat crow.

Irony is already astounding as the president who people elected because he was going to bring our troops home and stop wars over there is basically getting ready to start WW III.
 
2013-09-04 08:57:21 AM

Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......


Preemptive "But Bush-ing"?

That's farking meta!
 
2013-09-04 08:57:28 AM
The hypocrisy of the Democrats in this is adorable. As is the hypocrisy of the Republicans against it (unless they really learned from the Iraq fiasco and aren't just against it because Obama).
 
2013-09-04 08:57:43 AM
Both sides are..

Tyrosine: Both sides are reprehensible


The Muthaship: Hmmmm, I guess both sides are bad.....


Damn. At least there's only 2 sides, just like everywhere else
 
2013-09-04 08:58:00 AM

meatball: I seem to remember that a large convoy of trucks was monitored leaving Baghdad and entered Syria about a week before the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what those trucks were carrying?


His money and gold.
 
2013-09-04 08:58:00 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: meatball: I seem to remember that a large convoy of trucks was monitored leaving Baghdad and entered Syria about a week before the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what those trucks were carrying?

Nothing seeing as we blew up his shiat well before that right at the end of Desert Storm. Like literally we flattened his military and destroyed every accounted for weaponized chemical weapons. It's possible he might have still had some of the precursors but even that's a stretch.

One thing people forget to realize when talking about chemical weapons is that often many of these chemicals are used in industrial processes. Hell, you all likely have chemical weapons underneath your kitchen sink right now.


Your stance is that "nothing" was in the convoy?  Convoys of nothing.  Interesting attempt to both defend the current Bush-esque actions, while at the same time condemning Bush.
 
2013-09-04 08:58:00 AM
Killing a hundred thousand of your own people with conventional weapons is perfectly ok but gas a thousand and that's bad. 

This shait is going to go sideways very quickly and then we will be in another war. It was odd to see Kerry who lied about his fellow soldiers in order to get us out of a war sit and make the case for going to war.
 
2013-09-04 08:58:17 AM

Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......


So, if any country in the region has anything resembling the GENERAL TYPE of weapons reality-denying Bush apologists claim Iraq had in massive stockpiles, then automatically it came from Iraq and no place else.  And Ted Nugent is President.

Indeed.
 
2013-09-04 08:58:26 AM
Applying the Texan school of thought, the best solution for avoiding the use of chemical weapons in Syria is to issue every Syrian faction with chemical weapons.

Could that be a thing?

If for no other reason then to disprove the 'an armed society is a polite society'-bull.
 
2013-09-04 08:59:12 AM

Republibocrat: Your stance is that "nothing" was in the convoy? Convoys of nothing. Interesting attempt to both defend the current Bush-esque actions, while at the same time condemning Bush.


No this was in those convoys

ongbok: His money and gold.


Exactly. He knew what the end game was.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-09-04 08:59:43 AM

vudukungfu: Just give  SELL both sides more guns.
Then walk away.

/profit

FTFY
 
2013-09-04 09:00:04 AM
LewDux:

Damn. At least there's only 2 sides, just like everywhere else

I was referring to the US.
 
2013-09-04 09:00:06 AM

Republibocrat: What kind of world do we live in where the current actions of Democrats are justifying the actions of the Bush administration while at the same time ignoring their own anti-Bush rhetoric?  History, as she unfolds, is a cruel mistress.


Because "It's not X when *WE* do it!".

Sadly, that explains a large part of the gyrations both parties go through when explaining their actions.
 
2013-09-04 09:00:22 AM

steamingpile: Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......

I know this is a trolling user name but its a viable question now, Syria doesn't have plants to produce these weapons and it would be hilarious for the UN inspectors to go in there and find all those Iraqi stockpiles. If would be even funnier if US troops roll in there and find all the weapons proving Bush wasn't wrong forcing everyone to eat crow.

Irony is already astounding as the president who people elected because he was going to bring our troops home and stop wars over there is basically getting ready to start WW III.


Actually, my username is not meant to be trollish.  I use it because I find republican, libertarian, and democrat policies have good and bad and therefore refuse to be labeled with the bad as well as the good of each.  So my username represents me.  a Repub - Lib - Ocrat.
 
2013-09-04 09:01:51 AM

meatball: I seem to remember that a large convoy of trucks was monitored leaving Baghdad and entered Syria about a week before the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what those trucks were carrying?


More pure versions can last several months, but still decompose rather quickly.  (as within months)

so no
 
2013-09-04 09:02:03 AM

Molavian: F*ck them.  Let them handle their own shiat.


That pretty much sums it up.  We shouldn't be involved.
 
2013-09-04 09:02:15 AM

Tyrosine: I don't know why the U.S. is trying to intervene: Both sides are reprehensible, helping the rebels will likely only further the islamists cause, and rebels will just turn around and shiat all over the U.S. once they've won. The Arabs and Persians are always biatching about Western interference in their affairs, so here's the perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate such interference is not necessary.


Ummm... there are rebels that are not Al Qaeda. An effective Western intervention would completely derail Al Qaeda's current campaign to regain standing and cachet in the Arab world by fighting a secular Shia tyrant.
 
2013-09-04 09:03:12 AM

lordjupiter: Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......

So, if any country in the region has anything resembling the GENERAL TYPE of weapons reality-denying Bush apologists claim Iraq had in massive stockpiles, then automatically it came from Iraq and no place else.  And Ted Nugent is President.

Indeed.


Please.  Ted Nugent is a twit.  And I am not being a Bush apologist, just an observer.  There seems to be an interesting connection that COULD demonstrate Bush was not the war-mongering liar leftist cried.  I also find it appallingly hypocrtical of the righties who are crying out "No war!  We hate war!  Leave the Middle East alone!"
 
2013-09-04 09:03:57 AM

Public Savant: Applying the Texan school of thought, the best solution for avoiding the use of chemical weapons in Syria is to issue every Syrian faction with chemical weapons.

Could that be a thing?

If for no other reason then to disprove the 'an armed society is a polite society'-bull.


I've got a better idea to disprove that:  Let's arm two diametrically opposed factions with nuclear weapons, and put them on a hair trigger for decades.

/Wait a minute....
 
2013-09-04 09:05:39 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Tyrosine: I don't know why the U.S. is trying to intervene: Both sides are reprehensible, helping the rebels will likely only further the islamists cause, and rebels will just turn around and shiat all over the U.S. once they've won. The Arabs and Persians are always biatching about Western interference in their affairs, so here's the perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate such interference is not necessary.

Ummm... there are rebels that are not Al Qaeda. An effective Western intervention would completely derail Al Qaeda's current campaign to regain standing and cachet in the Arab world by fighting a secular Shia tyrant.


There are, but there were non fundie mujahdeen during the Soviet-Afghan war, too. It's hard to just assist some of the rebels when they have the same goal
 
2013-09-04 09:05:58 AM

Republibocrat: lordjupiter: Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......

So, if any country in the region has anything resembling the GENERAL TYPE of weapons reality-denying Bush apologists claim Iraq had in massive stockpiles, then automatically it came from Iraq and no place else.  And Ted Nugent is President.

Indeed.

Please.  Ted Nugent is a twit.  And I am not being a Bush apologist, just an observer.  There seems to be an interesting connection that COULD demonstrate Bush was not the war-mongering liar leftist cried.  I also find it appallingly hypocrtical of the righties who are crying out "No war!  We hate war!  Leave the Middle East alone!"


What exactly is this "connection"?   A consipiracy theory that flies in the face of all inspection evidence and Bush's own admission that the intelligence on Iraq was a failure?
 
2013-09-04 09:06:23 AM

Tyrosine: I don't know why the U.S. is trying to intervene: Both sides are reprehensible, helping the rebels will likely only further the islamists cause, and rebels will just turn around and shiat all over the U.S. once they've won. The Arabs and Persians are always biatching about Western interference in their affairs, so here's the perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate such interference is not necessary.


Logical, but whatever Israel wants, the US goes and gets it for them.
 
2013-09-04 09:06:47 AM

dittybopper: Public Savant: Applying the Texan school of thought, the best solution for avoiding the use of chemical weapons in Syria is to issue every Syrian faction with chemical weapons.

Could that be a thing?

If for no other reason then to disprove the 'an armed society is a polite society'-bull.

I've got a better idea to disprove that:  Let's arm two diametrically opposed factions with nuclear weapons, and put them on a hair trigger for decades.

/Wait a minute....


That's not a sound analogy. MAD isn't a solid strategy in firefights.
 
2013-09-04 09:08:20 AM

steamingpile: Republibocrat: So.... does this meant that Bush was right when he said Saddam had sent his chemical weapons into Syria?  Does this mean that his "intel" for the Iraq war was NOT incorrect?  ......Profound considerations......

I know this is a trolling user name but its a viable question now, Syria doesn't have plants to produce these weapons and it would be hilarious for the UN inspectors to go in there and find all those Iraqi stockpiles. If would be even funnier if US troops roll in there and find all the weapons proving Bush wasn't wrong forcing everyone to eat crow.

Irony is already astounding as the president who people elected because he was going to bring our troops home and stop wars over there is basically getting ready to start WW III.


Why are you always on the wrong side of information? I know this is a Right Wing FwFwFw talking point now that this proves that Iraq produced chemical weapons, and the reason why none were ever found in Iraq is because they were all sent to Syria, but that is false. It has been known for ever that Syria had plants that produced chemical weapons. Here is an article about the Syrian army battling with Al-Qaeda over a city called al-Safira, the location of one of Syria's largest chemical weapons plants that is mainly used to produce sarin. Syria has been in the chemical weapons manufacturing business since the 70's and has one of the largest stockpiles in the world.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-09-04 09:08:59 AM

dittybopper: Republibocrat: What kind of world do we live in where the current actions of Democrats are justifying the actions of the Bush administration while at the same time ignoring their own anti-Bush rhetoric?  History, as she unfolds, is a cruel mistress.

Because "It's not X when *WE* do it!".

Sadly, that explains a large part of the gyrations both parties go through when explaining their actions.


That reminds me of this quote:
"A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal"
 
2013-09-04 09:10:50 AM

SpectroBoy: Yeah, cuz they are under such tight control now, with the civil war and all.

Also, incinerating them is probably a great way to prevent them from being used.




Assuming you know where they are and can deliver the right kind of incendiary weapon, and assuming its a clean burn and the shiat doesn't just pop off and gas the surrounding square miles of city.

The idea of a punitive strike is shady. Doesn't mean anything unless Assad or his most critical weapon systems end up in the blast radius (jobs which are better handled by men rather than bombs). We're exposed to all the troubles of a war but with a self imposed leash on our forces.
If You want a war then you authorize a real one and don't leave options off the table that you know might be needed later.

I think Obama is trying to make the whole thing sound palatable for an easy vote, but he's hiding a pretty obvious truth behind his back and people don't appreciate that.
Not all wars are about popularity and this one might be well justified, but goddamned it don't treat us like we don't understand the consequences of a war to eliminate WMD stockpiles.
Make the case and be upfront that its a potential meat grinder with high stakes.
 
2013-09-04 09:12:39 AM

TheGregiss: "might cause the proliferation and loss of control of chemical weapons "

I guess blowing them up with big bombs falls under that.


Dropping conventional bombs on stocks of chemical weapons is a bad idea.
 
2013-09-04 09:13:26 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: That's not a sound analogy. MAD isn't a solid strategy in firefights.


You're right.  It's a sound strategy to *AVOID* firefights.

If you know that there is a very significant risk that attacking me will lead to your own demise, under most circumstances you will refrain from attacking me.

If, on the other hand, there is very little risk for you to attack me, the only thing restraining you is your own good will.
 
2013-09-04 09:14:52 AM
i290.photobucket.com

/I can't be the first who thought of this
 
2013-09-04 09:16:35 AM

Spade: Dropping conventional bombs on stocks of chemical weapons is a bad idea.


If we used Tomahawks it would likely be carrying the Bullpup 1000lb conventional explosive warhead
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report