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.

(Mondoweiss)   "AIPAC comes out for strike on Syria- and mentions Iran more often than Syria"   (mondoweiss.net) divider line 139
    More: Obvious, AIPAC, Syrians, Iran, NJ Senator Robert Menendez, security interests, weapons of mass destruction  
•       •       •

502 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 9:02 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 09:04:43 AM
As we all know, Syria is Iran's route to the sea.
 
2013-09-04 09:07:30 AM
That's how the west is going to hit Iran, bi going though the Syrian door. That's been the plan all along, just ask Dick.
 
2013-09-04 09:11:05 AM
So AIPAC wants the US to respond to barbarism with more barbarism.

How circular.
 
2013-09-04 09:16:45 AM

Marcus Aurelius: So AIPAC wants the US to respond to barbarism with more barbarism.

How circular.


No bombarism. Bomb bomb bomb Iran

Enjoy the earworm.
 
2013-09-04 09:19:59 AM
so
anyone want to guess how many people we kill

im guessing at least 150,000
 
2013-09-04 09:29:10 AM
They have bought your Congress. And if anybody does get any ideas about putting America first, well, that's what Wolf Blitzer is there for.
 
2013-09-04 09:29:53 AM
but Iran is 6 months away from a nuke like they have been for the past 20 years!
 
2013-09-04 09:37:07 AM

Apik0r0s: They have bought your Congress. And if anybody does get any ideas about putting America first, well, that's what Wolf Blitzer is there for.


You are truly obsessed.
 
2013-09-04 09:40:04 AM
To the surprise of absolutely nobody.
 
2013-09-04 09:42:03 AM

Infernalist: Apik0r0s: They have bought your Congress. And if anybody does get any ideas about putting America first, well, that's what Wolf Blitzer is there for.

You are truly obsessed.


The hilarious thing about guys like this is that they get really offended if you point out that their argument is indistinguishable from that of David Duke.

This guy actually said in another thread that Rupert Murdoch was a Jew, which explained his hawkishness on Syria.
 
2013-09-04 09:45:39 AM
Foreign agents out.
 
2013-09-04 09:50:08 AM
These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.
 
2013-09-04 09:55:26 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.


That's .. not what treason is, even if that's true.
 
2013-09-04 09:56:17 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.


Stupid Catholics answering to the Pope

If Cuba sucks so badly why does all of Miami want to go back?

If you are so proud of Mehico why did you have to come here to get a job...

/just playing your game
 
2013-09-04 09:59:24 AM

zedster: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.

Stupid Catholics answering to the Pope

If Cuba sucks so badly why does all of Miami want to go back?

If you are so proud of Mehico why did you have to come here to get a job...

/just playing your game


Not sure I follow your reasoning there.
 
2013-09-04 10:01:37 AM

Relatively Obscure: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.

That's .. not what treason is, even if that's true.


No, what Pollard, Weissman and Rosen did was treason. But don't worry, if you get caught undermining America, you will be rewarded:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/ex-aipac_official_ go t_670000_from_private_donors.html
 
2013-09-04 10:01:45 AM

enry: zedster: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.

Stupid Catholics answering to the Pope

If Cuba sucks so badly why does all of Miami want to go back?

If you are so proud of Mehico why did you have to come here to get a job...

/just playing your game

Not sure I follow your reasoning there.


Neither do I.
 
2013-09-04 10:07:22 AM
Article writer can't count.

Assad or "Syrian regime" was mentioned three times.
Iran or "Iranian ally" mentioned twice.
 
2013-09-04 10:14:12 AM

give me doughnuts: Article writer can't count.

Assad or "Syrian regime" was mentioned three times.
Iran or "Iranian ally" mentioned twice.


Really? This is what I see
AIPAC urges Congress to grant the President the authority he has requested to protect America's national security interests and dissuade the Syrian regime's further use of unconventional weapons. The civilized world cannot tolerate the use of these barbaric weapons, particularly against an innocent civilian population including hundreds of children.

Simply put, barbarism on a mass scale must not be given a free pass.

This is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah -- both of whom have provided direct and extensive military support to Assad. The Syrian regime and its Iranian ally have repeatedly demonstrated that they will not respect civilized norms. That is why America must act, and why we must prevent further proliferation of unconventional weapons in this region.

America's allies and adversaries are closely watching the outcome of this momentous vote. This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability. Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country's credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country's security and interests and those of our regional allies. AIPAC maintains that it is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force, and take a firm stand that the world's most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons.
 
2013-09-04 10:15:19 AM

enry: zedster: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.

Stupid Catholics answering to the Pope

If Cuba sucks so badly why does all of Miami want to go back?

If you are so proud of Mehico why did you have to come here to get a job...

/just playing your game

Not sure I follow your reasoning there.


When JFK was elected president people asked if we answer to the Pope or to America
likewise people question the motivation of the Cuban-American lobby on if they have America's best interests at hand

I'm saying either you are a pure isolationist or realize that America needs to have alliances on the international stage. If we are to have alliances and you have a vested interest as a member of a diaspora why not lobby for that? You can be an American and still feel American foreign policy should benefit your world view. To call that treasonous and claim they act without both nations interests is wrong. That being I'm more J-Street than AIPAC and AIPAC has had some pretty shady dealings (the whole spying thing) but aligns itself well within the neo-conservative wing of the G.O.P. You wouldn't call all the neo-con's traitors and you wouldn't fault most other American nationals who work for some foreign lobby.
 
2013-09-04 10:19:33 AM

zedster: You wouldn't call all the neo-con's traitors


You might want to give that whole explanation another try.  Its not good.
 
2013-09-04 10:21:33 AM
Meh. How often during the Cold War did we mention the Soviet Union more often than the subject country when calling for some kind of action?
 
2013-09-04 10:22:15 AM
I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.
 
2013-09-04 10:23:10 AM

Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.


I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.
 
2013-09-04 10:23:20 AM

zedster: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.

Stupid Catholics answering to the Pope

If Cuba sucks so badly why does all of Miami want to go back?


Because the Florida tag hurts their feelings?
 
2013-09-04 10:27:00 AM

zedster: You wouldn't call all the neo-con's traitors and you wouldn't fault most other American nationals who work for some foreign lobby.


Neo-Cons are traitors. There.

And I believe all foreign lobbyists should be expelled.
 
2013-09-04 10:27:06 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.


Because we don't know for sure he was the one who actually did it. After the last couple of gulf wars, I'm not going to take accusations of WMD use at face value. Prove it to me that this was done on Assads orders. Make your case to the UN, and if they agree it's true, then we can discuss our options.

Otherwise...STFU and put down the cruise missiles.
 
2013-09-04 10:28:37 AM

vygramul: Meh. How often during the Cold War did we mention the Soviet Union more often than the subject country when calling for some kind of action?



I thought the push for Iran was a trainwreck.  This one is worse.  The mental gymnastics to argue for action here just isnt going to sit right with people whove been force fed a bland derivative of Bernard Lewis' Clash of Civilizations against "Islamic fundamentalism."

It feels like a sequel to inception, where dream layers have been replaced with bullshiat
 
2013-09-04 10:29:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.


The borders of Middle-Eastern countries are arbitrary boundaries created by racist western imperialism without regard to culture, historical tradition, ethnic groups, or religious realities, resulting in countries of mixed denominations, conflicting political ideologies, and even parts of different regions of racial concentrations, leading to a hodge-podge of unrelated peoples sharing an artificial national "identity".

Until one of the tyrants we helped install starts gassing one of the other groups. Then he's "bombing his own people".
 
2013-09-04 10:30:53 AM

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Because we don't know for sure he was the one who actually did it. After the last couple of gulf wars, I'm not going to take accusations of WMD use at face value. Prove it to me that this was done on Assads orders. Make your case to the UN, and if they agree it's true, then we can discuss our options.

Otherwise...STFU and put down the cruise missiles.


Would you be okay if we targeted the launching vehicles on both sides of the conflict?  Rebels and Assad's forces alike?  Do our best to eliminate the ability of both sides to launch CWs at each other and reduces this back down to a regional civil conflict and nothing more?
 
2013-09-04 10:33:31 AM

zedster: enry: zedster: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: These guys are traitors, plain and simple.  They act purely in favor of a nation not their own.

Stupid Catholics answering to the Pope

If Cuba sucks so badly why does all of Miami want to go back?

If you are so proud of Mehico why did you have to come here to get a job...

/just playing your game

Not sure I follow your reasoning there.

When JFK was elected president people asked if we answer to the Pope or to America
likewise people question the motivation of the Cuban-American lobby on if they have America's best interests at hand

I'm saying either you are a pure isolationist or realize that America needs to have alliances on the international stage. If we are to have alliances and you have a vested interest as a member of a diaspora why not lobby for that? You can be an American and still feel American foreign policy should benefit your world view. To call that treasonous and claim they act without both nations interests is wrong. That being I'm more J-Street than AIPAC and AIPAC has had some pretty shady dealings (the whole spying thing) but aligns itself well within the neo-conservative wing of the G.O.P. You wouldn't call all the neo-con's traitors and you wouldn't fault most other American nationals who work for some foreign lobby.


I think this is a bit different than saying Kennedy would listen to the Pope.  The GOP pretty much hates all foreign policy unless we're sticking it to someone Israel doesn't like.  I don't know if that's because they're hoping for Armageddon, it's where the oil is, that's where the money comes from, or some combination.

And there are those who would consider the GOP traitors (at least after their actions of the past few years).
 
2013-09-04 10:34:55 AM

vygramul: The borders of Middle-Eastern countries are arbitrary boundaries created by racist western imperialism without regard to culture, historical tradition, ethnic groups, or religious realities, resulting in countries of mixed denominations, conflicting political ideologies, and even parts of different regions of racial concentrations, leading to a hodge-podge of unrelated peoples sharing an artificial national "identity".


The collapse of the Ottoman empire and the popularity of Nationalism as a political ideology sure were extremely important factors. That was a large artificial multi ethnic empire that left a void, and nationalism was "hot" as a solution.
 
2013-09-04 10:36:02 AM

Party Boy: vygramul: Meh. How often during the Cold War did we mention the Soviet Union more often than the subject country when calling for some kind of action?


I thought the push for Iran was a trainwreck.  This one is worse.  The mental gymnastics to argue for action here just isnt going to sit right with people whove been force fed a bland derivative of Bernard Lewis' Clash of Civilizations against "Islamic fundamentalism."

It feels like a sequel to inception, where dream layers have been replaced with bullshiat


The smear of Iran here was clumsy. Iran may be just as upset, telling Assad in private that he's making it hard for them to help him if he keeps doing crap like that, while remaining relatively silent in public about it. But this statement tries to create a culpability that is unlikely. I'm betting veterans of the Iran-Iraq war in the Iranian government are just as outraged as anyone. (People who have actually SEEN chemical weapons used seem to me to be the strongest opponents of their use.)
 
2013-09-04 10:36:52 AM

enry: The GOP pretty much hates all foreign policy unless we're sticking it to someone Israel doesn't like.


Name a national-level GOP politician who doesnt parrot neoconservative foreign policy for the middle east.

Even "tea-party" Rubio is doing it.
 
2013-09-04 10:37:37 AM

Party Boy: enry: The GOP pretty much hates all foreign policy unless we're sticking it to someone Israel doesn't like.

Name a national-level GOP politician who doesnt parrot neoconservative foreign policy for the middle east.

Even "tea-party" Rubio is doing it.


Does Rand Paul count?
 
2013-09-04 10:38:30 AM

Infernalist: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Because we don't know for sure he was the one who actually did it. After the last couple of gulf wars, I'm not going to take accusations of WMD use at face value. Prove it to me that this was done on Assads orders. Make your case to the UN, and if they agree it's true, then we can discuss our options.

Otherwise...STFU and put down the cruise missiles.

Would you be okay if we targeted the launching vehicles on both sides of the conflict?  Rebels and Assad's forces alike?  Do our best to eliminate the ability of both sides to launch CWs at each other and reduces this back down to a regional civil conflict and nothing more?


No. It's just too much of a chaotic mess right now to even know for sure what it is we would be bombing.
 
2013-09-04 10:38:41 AM
You can pretty much hear their pants zippers bursting as they talk about war.
 
2013-09-04 10:38:42 AM

Infernalist: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Because we don't know for sure he was the one who actually did it. After the last couple of gulf wars, I'm not going to take accusations of WMD use at face value. Prove it to me that this was done on Assads orders. Make your case to the UN, and if they agree it's true, then we can discuss our options.

Otherwise...STFU and put down the cruise missiles.

Would you be okay if we targeted the launching vehicles on both sides of the conflict?  Rebels and Assad's forces alike?  Do our best to eliminate the ability of both sides to launch CWs at each other and reduces this back down to a regional civil conflict and nothing more?


I would 100% be okay with this strategy too.
 
2013-09-04 10:39:40 AM

Weaver95: Infernalist: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Because we don't know for sure he was the one who actually did it. After the last couple of gulf wars, I'm not going to take accusations of WMD use at face value. Prove it to me that this was done on Assads orders. Make your case to the UN, and if they agree it's true, then we can discuss our options.

Otherwise...STFU and put down the cruise missiles.

Would you be okay if we targeted the launching vehicles on both sides of the conflict?  Rebels and Assad's forces alike?  Do our best to eliminate the ability of both sides to launch CWs at each other and reduces this back down to a regional civil conflict and nothing more?

No. It's just too much of a chaotic mess right now to even know for sure what it is we would be bombing.


It's not so chaotic as that.  Artillery units and missile vehicles aren't hard to identify.  Large, very well known vehicles with distinct shapes and sizes.  Once they're out of the picture, the chance of CWs being used again is almost nil.
 
2013-09-04 10:39:43 AM

Party Boy: vygramul: The borders of Middle-Eastern countries are arbitrary boundaries created by racist western imperialism without regard to culture, historical tradition, ethnic groups, or religious realities, resulting in countries of mixed denominations, conflicting political ideologies, and even parts of different regions of racial concentrations, leading to a hodge-podge of unrelated peoples sharing an artificial national "identity".

The collapse of the Ottoman empire and the popularity of Nationalism as a political ideology sure were extremely important factors. That was a large artificial multi ethnic empire that left a void, and nationalism was "hot" as a solution.


The collapse of the Ottoman's isn't a well-covered subject. I don't know of any good English-language sources with an Ottoman behind-the-scenes perspective of the mechanism for their defeat in the Levant. Then again, the Ottomans were engaging in some rather reprehensible acts at the same time, and the Turkish government probably doesn't allow perusal of those records by non-government historians because it would be hard to filter out the damning documentation.
 
2013-09-04 10:39:51 AM

Weaver95: No. It's just too much of a chaotic mess right now to even know for sure what it is we would be bombing.


Why do you act, in every Syria thread, like we can't launch drones into a warzone to take pictures? Like our technology is still in the 80s where surveillance was done by SR-71s and satellites with the resolution of a small city?
 
2013-09-04 10:40:19 AM

Party Boy: enry: The GOP pretty much hates all foreign policy unless we're sticking it to someone Israel doesn't like.

Name a national-level GOP politician who doesnt parrot neoconservative foreign policy for the middle east.

Even "tea-party" Rubio is doing it.


Rand Paul?
 
2013-09-04 10:40:41 AM

vygramul: Party Boy: vygramul: The borders of Middle-Eastern countries are arbitrary boundaries created by racist western imperialism without regard to culture, historical tradition, ethnic groups, or religious realities, resulting in countries of mixed denominations, conflicting political ideologies, and even parts of different regions of racial concentrations, leading to a hodge-podge of unrelated peoples sharing an artificial national "identity".

The collapse of the Ottoman empire and the popularity of Nationalism as a political ideology sure were extremely important factors. That was a large artificial multi ethnic empire that left a void, and nationalism was "hot" as a solution.

The collapse of the Ottoman's isn't a well-covered subject. I don't know of any good English-language sources with an Ottoman behind-the-scenes perspective of the mechanism for their defeat in the Levant. Then again, the Ottomans were engaging in some rather reprehensible acts at the same time, and the Turkish government probably doesn't allow perusal of those records by non-government historians because it would be hard to filter out the damning documentation.


They're still very touchy about the Armenian thing.
 
2013-09-04 10:40:54 AM

Infernalist: It's not so chaotic as that.  Artillery units and missile vehicles aren't hard to identify.  Large, very well known vehicles with distinct shapes and sizes.  Once they're out of the picture, the chance of CWs being used again is almost nil.


Forget it, man, he has his illusions about what the situation actually is like and would like to cling to them in order to be excused from making a decision.
 
2013-09-04 10:42:48 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Infernalist: It's not so chaotic as that.  Artillery units and missile vehicles aren't hard to identify.  Large, very well known vehicles with distinct shapes and sizes.  Once they're out of the picture, the chance of CWs being used again is almost nil.

Forget it, man, he has his illusions about what the situation actually is like and would like to cling to them in order to be excused from making a decision.


Weaver's not a bad guy.  He's really not.  But, I suspect his Libertarian instincts make him want to say 'stay out of it' no matter what's going on over there.
 
2013-09-04 10:43:10 AM

Infernalist: Party Boy: enry: The GOP pretty much hates all foreign policy unless we're sticking it to someone Israel doesn't like.

Name a national-level GOP politician who doesnt parrot neoconservative foreign policy for the middle east.

Even "tea-party" Rubio is doing it.

Does Rand Paul count?


If that guy gets traction in the hill on foreign policy, and has to run national-level campaigns with national-level funds... you could make that argument easy considering consistent arguments.
 
2013-09-04 10:46:07 AM

Infernalist: cameroncrazy1984: Infernalist: It's not so chaotic as that.  Artillery units and missile vehicles aren't hard to identify.  Large, very well known vehicles with distinct shapes and sizes.  Once they're out of the picture, the chance of CWs being used again is almost nil.

Forget it, man, he has his illusions about what the situation actually is like and would like to cling to them in order to be excused from making a decision.

Weaver's not a bad guy.  He's really not.  But, I suspect his Libertarian instincts make him want to say 'stay out of it' no matter what's going on over there.


I would agree with that assessment. I just think that logic starts to fail when you have to fallback on "We don't know" as the reason not to go, when we obviously have the technology to "know."
 
2013-09-04 10:46:35 AM

Infernalist: Weaver95: Infernalist: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: I would really like to not bomb Syria. I would like even more to not bomb Iran. Israel can go pound sand...they are not our friends.

I don't understand why you are okay with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

Because we don't know for sure he was the one who actually did it. After the last couple of gulf wars, I'm not going to take accusations of WMD use at face value. Prove it to me that this was done on Assads orders. Make your case to the UN, and if they agree it's true, then we can discuss our options.

Otherwise...STFU and put down the cruise missiles.

Would you be okay if we targeted the launching vehicles on both sides of the conflict?  Rebels and Assad's forces alike?  Do our best to eliminate the ability of both sides to launch CWs at each other and reduces this back down to a regional civil conflict and nothing more?

No. It's just too much of a chaotic mess right now to even know for sure what it is we would be bombing.

It's not so chaotic as that.  Artillery units and missile vehicles aren't hard to identify.  Large, very well known vehicles with distinct shapes and sizes.  Once they're out of the picture, the chance of CWs being used again is almost nil.


Without going into detail, I was involved in developing an understanding of searching for similar assets in 2000. One of the last things was getting people to understand negative search. You can't look everywhere all at once (you only have so many satellite sweeps and only so many overflights and so many specops teams in a given timeframe), so if you don't find them where you looked, you should conclude they're located where you didn't look. Usually, the recognition that the assets were where you didn't look coincided with a decision to strike those areas. That was considered the successful indication of "getting" it with regards to search. But the unintentional message might have been that striking without certainty was ok. That message probably should have been addressed, though it might have been - I only helped test the training, I didn't administer it.
 
2013-09-04 10:48:21 AM

vygramul: The smear of Iran here was clumsy. Iran may be just as upset, telling Assad in private that he's making it hard for them to help him if he keeps doing crap like that, while remaining relatively silent in public about it. But this statement tries to create a culpability that is unlikely. I'm betting veterans of the Iran-Iraq war in the Iranian government are just as outraged as anyone. (People who have actually SEEN chemical weapons used seem to me to be the strongest opponents of their use.)


Iran was clumsy because the foundations of the argument were horrible.  Deeply weak.  I have a long list from the neoconservative total 180 degree flip on iran after the early 1990's, to the.. oh i could go on.  This one is worse, and its even easy for J.Q Public to understand.

"What are we going to do, support Al-Qaeda?"
"Wheres the evidence?"

Its a little hyperbolic.
However, the public is digging into this with some criticism moreso than 2002.    They've been hit with deep personal cuts, and are hearing incongruous explanations trying to justify international action when theyre still concerned with domestic issues.
 
2013-09-04 10:50:40 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Infernalist: cameroncrazy1984: Infernalist: It's not so chaotic as that.  Artillery units and missile vehicles aren't hard to identify.  Large, very well known vehicles with distinct shapes and sizes.  Once they're out of the picture, the chance of CWs being used again is almost nil.

Forget it, man, he has his illusions about what the situation actually is like and would like to cling to them in order to be excused from making a decision.

Weaver's not a bad guy.  He's really not.  But, I suspect his Libertarian instincts make him want to say 'stay out of it' no matter what's going on over there.

I would agree with that assessment. I just think that logic starts to fail when you have to fallback on "We don't know" as the reason not to go, when we obviously have the technology to "know."


It's also setting the bar to a level that simply will never be reached. Get the UN to agree? You couldn't get the UN to agree on it even if Assad said, "Yes, it was us." Russia and China would never vote to hit him, and Russia would probably veto. The Germans and French, both of whom told us to pound sand with our evidence against Iraq have agreed that Assad did it, though Germany is still against doing anything about it.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 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