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.

(Washington Times)   Senate resolution for WW3 includes boots on the ground. So much for just a few missile strikes   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 287
    More: Asinine, President Obama, boots on the ground, Senate, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Syrians, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen, Senate resolution, Gulf of Tonkin  
•       •       •

9775 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2013 at 4:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-04 04:16:00 PM  
Hah, you've got to be kidding subby. TFA clearly states the senate resolution specifically denies the opportunity for Obama to put boots on the ground, unless he uses the "loophole" in the poorly structured legal language written into the bill to push his powers beyond the scopw of what was duly authorized by congress.

And we all know that no modern president would unilaterally decide to strike a foreign nation and potentially embroil us in a long protracted war, nor would a modern president use the opportunities presented by poorly crafted language to expand the powers of the executive office.
 
2013-09-04 04:17:10 PM  
How entirely predictable.
 
2013-09-04 04:17:27 PM  
I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"
 
2013-09-04 04:17:39 PM  
Looking like a fool with your boots on the ground.
 
2013-09-04 04:18:15 PM  
"Cotton: I am in support of Obama" Arkansas GOP calls for Republican party to support strike. So it will take a war to get us to all agree? Jeesh.

Cotton "It is a miracle, but I am on board." So now war is a miracle? I thought life was the GOP miracle?
 
2013-09-04 04:18:43 PM  
as long as the first to go are the hawks.
 
2013-09-04 04:19:08 PM  

Pinner: Looking like a fool with your boots on the ground.


biatch done stole my line.
 
2013-09-04 04:19:32 PM  
Chris Matthews seems to think that Democrats need to support Syria action to save Obama's hide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/chris-matthews-syria-congre ss -vote_n_3865117.html
 
2013-09-04 04:19:42 PM  
Economy slumping, start a war to kill off the poor.
 
2013-09-04 04:19:57 PM  

ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?


Yes.
 
2013-09-04 04:20:34 PM  

Pinner: Looking like a fool with your boots on the ground.


^^^

What you said
 
2013-09-04 04:20:51 PM  
This ain't Iraq... Syria actually has soldiers, and some pretty big behind-the-scenes supporters...
 
2013-09-04 04:21:06 PM  
A computer generated depiction of what "boots on the ground" may look like:


www.outsidethebeltway.com
 
2013-09-04 04:21:11 PM  

Ned Stark: How entirely predictable.


What, that the headline is bullsh*t? Yeah, that's predictable.
 
2013-09-04 04:22:40 PM  

ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"


Its the one you don't agree with.
 
2013-09-04 04:22:49 PM  
I wish Cotton would stfu.

/Arkansan
//didn't vote for him
 
2013-09-04 04:22:55 PM  
War, huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
War huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all
War, huh good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

Oh, war, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tear to thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go off to fight and lose their lives

I said
War, huh good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
War whoa Lord
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker

Oh war, is an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest within the younger generation
Induction, then destruction who wants to die

War, good God, y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it, say it, say it
War, uh huh, yeah, huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend that's the undertaker

Oh, war has shattered many young man's dreams
Made him disabled bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life it can only take it away, ooh

War, huh, good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again
War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker

Peace love and understanding tell me
Is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

War, huh, good God y'all
What is it good for?
You tell 'em, say it, say it, say it, say it
War, good Lord, huh
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it, nothing
War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
 
2013-09-04 04:23:18 PM  
Well, clearly they are serious about getting the national debt under control.

No doubt our fiscally-minded Senate included language that imposes a progressive war tax to pay for any escalation in conflict... right?
 
2013-09-04 04:23:26 PM  
Lawyers arguing over legal drafting, fascinating.  Short version is that the Senate is working on an AUMF that is weird because the whole area of War Powers law is twisted around.  Vague language about tailored action and some time limits.  The President reserves the right to do more or less whatever he wants with the military, so the decision to bring in the Congress is political, not legal.  Remember when Bush admin lawyers argued that the Iraq II AUMF authorized enhanced interrogation techniques at Gitmo?

This draft AUMF would recite that ""the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States" something the law profs say is a huge concession by Congress, but you could argue it merely recognizes what has become the reality.
 
2013-09-04 04:23:55 PM  
So it mandates boots on the ground. It doesn't say they have to have feet in them.
 
2013-09-04 04:23:58 PM  
The APE-PAC gets what it wants. Always.

Putin is at the center of this.Assad has been his proxy Jihadi fighter in the south.If Assad goes, here is what and who will happen in Syria:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/syria-war-rebels-chec hnya-islamic-militants_n_2821197.htmlChechens. Muslim militants.This is why Putin has been helping Assad for so long. Syria is a virtual Russian satellite nation.If the United States assists the rebels, there you go.Putin won't let that happen, fark no.Therefore we have what we have now, which is Putin saying he wants a UN resolution but not allowing a UN resolution to go forward.Putin plays chess with the whole board.Obama is playing checkers.When Obama moves on to his next free lunch, Putin will still be there, calling the shots.
 
2013-09-04 04:24:42 PM  
It's the opposite of true, which is the worst kind of true.
 
2013-09-04 04:24:43 PM  
Just look at that comments section....
 
2013-09-04 04:24:47 PM  

clkeagle: Well, clearly they are serious about getting the national debt under control.

No doubt our fiscally-minded Senate included language that imposes a progressive war tax to pay for any escalation in conflict... right?


Kerry said the Arabs were going to finance it
 
2013-09-04 04:25:07 PM  

Elegy: Hah, you've got to be kidding subby. TFA clearly states the senate resolution specifically denies the opportunity for Obama to put boots on the ground, unless he uses the "loophole" in the poorly structured legal language written into the bill to push his powers beyond the scopw of what was duly authorized by congress.


Boots are on the ground, meat.
The 1st Armored Division is in Jordan and has been since spring.
 
2013-09-04 04:25:15 PM  
I wish Congress would have said, "nah, we dont think we are going to approve your request."

Let the president decide what he wants to do from there.
 
2013-09-04 04:26:39 PM  
So your saying "Mission accomplished"...
 
2013-09-04 04:27:24 PM  
*wiggles*
 
2013-09-04 04:27:27 PM  
Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)
 
2013-09-04 04:27:56 PM  
Next up: US ground forces forced to fight in flip flops.

/thanks Bootbama
 
2013-09-04 04:28:07 PM  
We would cause more damage dropping explosive bombs on the ground rather than boots.

Dropping boots from planes seems a little silly. "Random Task" the pilot?
 
2013-09-04 04:28:30 PM  
Boot-Gate
 
2013-09-04 04:29:25 PM  
i.imgur.com

SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT.  Unless you're...
 
2013-09-04 04:29:41 PM  
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
 
2013-09-04 04:29:56 PM  

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesyexample of political maneuvering. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


FTFY
 
2013-09-04 04:30:01 PM  
Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-09-04 04:30:03 PM  
hope and change
 
2013-09-04 04:30:17 PM  

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


Police action is a lovely work around.
 
2013-09-04 04:30:21 PM  
So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!
 
2013-09-04 04:30:59 PM  
I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.
 
2013-09-04 04:32:15 PM  

barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!


Their are multiple rebel groups that are fighting the government. There are pro-west rebel groups and anti-west rebel groups fighting.
 
2013-09-04 04:32:16 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Elegy: Hah, you've got to be kidding subby. TFA clearly states the senate resolution specifically denies the opportunity for Obama to put boots on the ground, unless he uses the "loophole" in the poorly structured legal language written into the bill to push his powers beyond the scopw of what was duly authorized by congress.

Boots are on the ground, meat.
The 1st Armored Division is in Jordan and has been since spring.


No, it isn't. There are 900 personnel in Jordan; the rest left after the annual multilateral exercise in June. We've got some Patriot batteries and a couple Air Force squadrons; that's it.
 
2013-09-04 04:32:21 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.


He's going to smack a biatch with it
 
2013-09-04 04:32:23 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2013-09-04 04:32:52 PM  
No "boots on the ground" just sneakers.  It's totally different.
 
2013-09-04 04:32:56 PM  

barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!


Why would Assad use chemical weapons.  It makes no sense to me.  I am suggesting he didnt but it seems like a stupid move considering Obama made chemical weapons "The Red Line."  Why would he want to force the US' hand?
 
2013-09-04 04:33:19 PM  
I hope the first platoon that goes into combat in Syria consists of the sons and daughters of US Senators. And that they are led by the 1rst Regimental British Petroleum Combat Engineers.
 
2013-09-04 04:33:48 PM  
 This was decided over 20 years ago.    Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Next is Yemen and then Iran completes the mission.
 
2013-09-04 04:34:04 PM  

paygun: hope and change


well, we got the second one anyway...
 
2013-09-04 04:34:55 PM  
Oh boy...
 
2013-09-04 04:34:59 PM  
What boots on the ground might look like:

2.bp.blogspot.com

www.scenicreflections.com

xaxor.com

www.downloaddreams.com

I fail to see the problem...
 
2013-09-04 04:35:24 PM  
Can we launch, like lots and lots of boots at them?  Will that make everyone happy?
 
2013-09-04 04:35:40 PM  
It is a very bad idea.  Let another country do this.
 
2013-09-04 04:35:49 PM  
But what does a real publication say about it?
 
2013-09-04 04:35:58 PM  
I'm interested to see what Mr. Nobel Peace Prize will do now that he has the blessing of congress.  Even more interesting will be to read how all the Obama apologists here on fark will spin a way to blame whatever he does (if anything) on Bush.   Oh what the hell am I saying?   Welcome_ to_ fark.jpg where

/D=good
//R= Bad
/// and that's that.
 
2013-09-04 04:36:29 PM  
www.fiftiesweb.com
Isn't there someone we can call to get this whole thing quietly taken care of?
 
2013-09-04 04:36:32 PM  
Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Forgot basic war winning theory-a
Way down yonder in Syria
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I ain't got no fear of ya,
Next stop is Syria;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of it's trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Arab-cong.

 /Apologies to Country Joe Mac Donald.
 
2013-09-04 04:36:50 PM  

Gunny Highway: barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!

Why would Assad use chemical weapons.  It makes no sense to me.  I am suggesting he didnt but it seems like a stupid move considering Obama made chemical weapons "The Red Line."  Why would he want to force the US' hand?


They were used back in June and nothing happened. So, why not do it again. "What red line?"

On the other hand, some rebels were found with sarin around the same time.
 
2013-09-04 04:37:00 PM  

LeroyBourne: Can we launch, like lots and lots of boots at them?  Will that make everyone happy?


that would make me happy...just not my Lucchese's
 
2013-09-04 04:37:37 PM  
The Decider approves of this resolution.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-04 04:37:40 PM  
I was watching the House cmte. meeting on this.  Amazingly there was only one Republican who veered completely into derp mode and supported action and regime change, another who brought up Benghazi for a minute, but the rest of the Republicans sounded relatively sane and questioned the need for this in a resonable manner (with one asking how the Russians would retaliate on behalf of Syria).  The Democrats were completely sane of course, but asking the same questions the Republicans were asking.  Both sides asked what this would mean in the larger picture (i.e. would this de-stabalize the regime to the point that the wrong people went into power).

So maybe the Senate wants a war but it'll die in the House.  So then what?  We only launch half the missiles we intended?
 
2013-09-04 04:37:46 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: What boots on the ground might look like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 335x502]

[www.scenicreflections.com image 850x637]

[xaxor.com image 550x825]

[www.downloaddreams.com image 567x850]

I fail to see the problem...


Heels are much better in the air
 
2013-09-04 04:38:34 PM  
So we are going to give them boots. Thats nice much better than bombs. We should send over a shiat ton of pizza and charge it to Assad.
 
2013-09-04 04:38:54 PM  
Raytheon will just start producing a new bomb called Boot.
 
2013-09-04 04:40:51 PM  

bugmn99: Next up: US ground forces forced to fight in flip flops.

/thanks Bootbama


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-04 04:40:58 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: WhoopAssWayne: I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.

He's going to smack a biatch with it


Hooray racism!
 
2013-09-04 04:40:59 PM  

vudukungfu: Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Forgot basic war winning theory-a
Way down yonder in Syria
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I ain't got no fear of ya,
Next stop is Syria;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of it's trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Arab-cong.

 /Apologies to Country Joe Mac Donald.


Don't apologize. It fits, really well.

/too well.
//Oh well.
 
2013-09-04 04:41:19 PM  

barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!


No, the "Rebels" are the good guys in rag-tag earth-tone uniforms fighting against the evil Empire.  You know, Luke Skywalker -- the guy with a thing for his sister.  Rebels could never be bad!
 
2013-09-04 04:41:38 PM  

Daffydil: LeroyBourne: Can we launch, like lots and lots of boots at them?  Will that make everyone happy?

that would make me happy...just not my Lucchese's


Yeah, and leave my doc martins out of this mess!
 
2013-09-04 04:41:44 PM  

barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!


i think some things are more important then the momentary sides of two groups of people.  you can go to war with someone because they pissed you off and have some justification, but when someone breaks accepted international law against the use of chemical warfare, that is a bigger deal.  doing nothing will inevitably mean, more people will use chemical warfare, while winning or losing against al qaeda is not going to have as large of an effect on the world.

it's like letting the most horrible person on earth go free because the police violated the constitution to get the conviction.  the most horrible person in the world pales in comparison with a violation of the things we think most fundamental, because violating those fundamental things will result in a worse world than that one person could cause.
 
2013-09-04 04:42:01 PM  
I wonder how many people who supported an all out INVASION of Iraq over the mere POSSIBILITY that they possessed WMD are now ripping their hair out in anger over a limited air campaign against a regime that is actually USING WMD. I'm on the fence over this whole thing, but biatchslapping a POS like Assad and showing a zero tolerance policy toward regimes that massacre people with chemical weapons isn't something I'm going to lose sleep over.
 
2013-09-04 04:42:34 PM  
It's nonsense, of course, dismantling the chemical weapons munitions will involve removing them from their explosive components and then incinerating the rest in high-heat or chemically treating them to render the components inert; and then treating the remains as toxic waste. This won't be done by air strikes.
 
2013-09-04 04:42:36 PM  
I won't cum in your mouth.
 
2013-09-04 04:42:41 PM  
Let's get this out of the way, shall we...

blogs.cars.com
This is a trunk...NOT a boot. Stop calling it the boot.
 
2013-09-04 04:42:59 PM  
My favorite part of the "analysis" you see about this is the dumbasses who think there's been no shift in defense policy between Bush and Obama. Obama is NOT going to go in heavy, ANYWHERE. The Obama doctrine has been very clearly defined: Light footprint involving special forces only, heavy use of air power, maximum use of signals intelligence. The only way he'd put boots on the ground would be to insert Green Berets amongst the resistance, or to send a SEAL team to schwack somebody, and neither of those are likely given the lethality of the environment. Whatever Congress passes is moot; Obama's going to do a Clinton-style cruise-missile shower, and wait for Syria to make the next move.

Assad better not get too cocky with the public appearances, because if we know exactly where he is, I can definitely see an attempt to put a warhead on his forehead.
 
2013-09-04 04:43:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Smeggy Smurf: WhoopAssWayne: I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.

He's going to smack a biatch with it

Hooray racism!


I think "smacking a biatch" is sexist.  You're getting you *ists mixed up.
 
2013-09-04 04:43:52 PM  

Yunus: No "boots on the ground" just sneakers.  It's totally different.


So, Navy Seals then?
 
2013-09-04 04:45:05 PM  
I'd like to think the American public will hold their elected officials responsible for getting us into a proxy-war with Iran & Russia, but then I remember they were the morons who KEEP ELECTING THE ASSHOLES OVER AND OVER...
 
2013-09-04 04:45:31 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Let's get this out of the way, shall we...


This is a trunk...NOT a boot. Stop calling it the boot.


No... a trunk is what you put your boots in when you don't want them left on the ground.
 
2013-09-04 04:45:52 PM  

uber humper: cameroncrazy1984: Smeggy Smurf: WhoopAssWayne: I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.

He's going to smack a biatch with it

Hooray racism!

I think "smacking a biatch" is sexist.  You're getting you *ists mixed up.


Also, the ASPCA might get after you for hitting your dog.
 
2013-09-04 04:46:27 PM  
Ha, the loophole is giving the soldiers sandals instead of boots.

Remind me again, are we bombing Al Qaida or the other side?
 
2013-09-04 04:46:43 PM  
How hard is to make a resolution that is clear on strike capability.

"The president is authorized in the use of remote force to strike military targets relating to chemical weapons production, distribution, and use inside the country of Syria"

There, done. Send me your paychecks jackasses.
 
2013-09-04 04:46:56 PM  

Elegy: boots


bugmn99: flip flops


Yunus: sneakers


No, no, no. Due to sequestration, our armed forces will now fight in these:

websitegenel.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-04 04:48:01 PM  

mbillips: My favorite part of the "analysis" you see about this is the dumbasses who think there's been no shift in defense policy between Bush and Obama. Obama is NOT going to go in heavy, ANYWHERE. The Obama doctrine has been very clearly defined: Light footprint involving special forces only, heavy use of air power, maximum use of signals intelligence. The only way he'd put boots on the ground would be to insert Green Berets amongst the resistance, or to send a SEAL team to schwack somebody, and neither of those are likely given the lethality of the environment. Whatever Congress passes is moot; Obama's going to do a Clinton-style cruise-missile shower, and wait for Syria to make the next move.

Assad better not get too cocky with the public appearances, because if we know exactly where he is, I can definitely see an attempt to put a warhead on his forehead.


That's how we started in Vietnam.

/I hope I'm wrong
//I doubt it.
///slashies for change
 
2013-09-04 04:48:22 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: How hard is to make a resolution that is clear on strike capability.

"The president is authorized in the use of remote force to strike military targets relating to chemical weapons production, distribution, and use inside the country of Syria"

There, done. Send me your paychecks jackasses.


Does the University count? It has chemistry and chemical engineering faculties.
 
2013-09-04 04:49:17 PM  

Whexican: ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"

Its the one you don't agree with.


Because the Moonie Times is clearly on the same level as the 47 Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post (six in one year in 2008).
 
2013-09-04 04:49:20 PM  
wilson.house.gov
www.washingtoncitypaper.comimg.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-09-04 04:49:24 PM  

ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

0-media-cdn.foolz.us

 
2013-09-04 04:49:29 PM  
These warmongering elites can go fark themselves.
 
2013-09-04 04:50:22 PM  

mbillips: My favorite part of the "analysis" you see about this is the dumbasses who think there's been no shift in defense policy between Bush and Obama. Obama is NOT going to go in heavy, ANYWHERE. The Obama doctrine has been very clearly defined: Light footprint involving special forces only, heavy use of air power, maximum use of signals intelligence. The only way he'd put boots on the ground would be to insert Green Berets amongst the resistance, or to send a SEAL team to schwack somebody, and neither of those are likely given the lethality of the environment. Whatever Congress passes is moot; Obama's going to do a Clinton-style cruise-missile shower, and wait for Syria to make the next move.

Assad better not get too cocky with the public appearances, because if we know exactly where he is, I can definitely see an attempt to put a warhead on his forehead.


...and then what?  An Iraq-style bout of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing as the Alawite ruling class (but a minority) are rounded up and/or killed?  Deposing or killing Assad would not end the bloodshed -- if anything, it would accelerate it.  In the end, we'd probably be left with just as many dead bodies, but the country would be presided over by an Islamic theocracy rather than a brutal secular dictator.

So....step 3, profit?
 
2013-09-04 04:50:53 PM  
I still say we just put the entire middle east under the dome (Ala Stephen King) and let them solve their own farking problems. This is not a Trey Parker/Matt Stone movie dumbasses.
 
2013-09-04 04:51:29 PM  

ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?


Times. It's the one owned by Moonies. The Post is now owned by Jeff Bezos.
 
2013-09-04 04:52:13 PM  

Xlr8urfark: I wish Cotton would stfu.

/Arkansan
//didn't vote for him


I wish Cotton was a monkey.
 
2013-09-04 04:52:24 PM  
granitegrok.com
 
2013-09-04 04:52:33 PM  

uber humper: Gunny Highway: barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!

Why would Assad use chemical weapons.  It makes no sense to me.  I am suggesting he didnt but it seems like a stupid move considering Obama made chemical weapons "The Red Line."  Why would he want to force the US' hand?

They were used back in June and nothing happened. So, why not do it again. "What red line?"

On the other hand, some rebels were found with sarin around the same time.


The rebels were found with sarin, but I guess this instance involves the chemicals being delivered by missile, something that's thought to be outside the capabilities of the rebels.

That being said, I have no clue who to actually believe. I wouldn't put it past our government to fabricate evidence, but I also don't want to side with Putin.

This conflict will have no clear winners. A pyrrhic victory for all sides involved
 
2013-09-04 04:52:57 PM  

Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.


Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.
 
2013-09-04 04:53:15 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-09-04 04:53:20 PM  

jshine: ...and then what? An Iraq-style bout of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing as the Alawite ruling class (but a minority) are rounded up and/or killed? Deposing or killing Assad would not end the bloodshed -- if anything, it would accelerate it. In the end, we'd probably be left with just as many dead bodies, but the country would be presided over by an Islamic theocracy rather than a brutal secular dictator.


don't forget the christians and druze are going to be against the wall with the alawites. Gonna be a fantastic genocide that america is going to own if we tip the balance to the rebels. I'm sure mccain and the farkers here will conveniently forget that when the mass graves are being shown on CNN
 
2013-09-04 04:53:37 PM  

jshine: uber humper: cameroncrazy1984: Smeggy Smurf: WhoopAssWayne: I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.

He's going to smack a biatch with it

Hooray racism!

I think "smacking a biatch" is sexist.  You're getting you *ists mixed up.

Also, the ASPCA might get after you for hitting your dog.


mainstreet62: Elegy: boots

bugmn99: flip flops

Yunus: sneakers

No, no, no. Due to sequestration, our armed forces will now fight in these:

[websitegenel.files.wordpress.com image 475x281]


  DO you have any idea how much those cost? Christ, that would be just like the government -- spending too much cheese on something that's worthless
 
2013-09-04 04:54:09 PM  
Hey, Raytheon paid for those Senators fair and square.
 
2013-09-04 04:54:12 PM  

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


It's sad what people think is "legal" anymore. I hate to break it to you, but the War Powers Resolution is still the law of the land. Presidents don't get to decide what is legal and what isn't legal. In no way does the current clusterfark in Syria trigger the conditions for action under the WPR.
 
2013-09-04 04:54:13 PM  
They better nof*ck the oil fields overthere. USA, USA,  USA,  USA,  USA,  USA,  USA!

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-gas-little-known-facts-syrias-energ y -resources-russias-help-1402405">http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-ga s-little-known-facts-syrias-energy -resources-russias-help-1402405
 
2013-09-04 04:54:44 PM  

farkinglizardking: I wouldn't put it past our government to fabricate evidence, but I also don't want to side with Putin.


fair.org

globalvoicesonline.org

/ meh, they're both about equally believable
 
2013-09-04 04:54:57 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Economy slumping, start a war to kill off the poor.


Indeed
 
2013-09-04 04:55:09 PM  
I thought the report was about NO boots on the ground unless the president blah blah.
Not that it matters anyway.
the wealthy people you put in office will have their way
There were chems in iraq
now syria has them
and for some reason, people think it's okay to do the same thing over again
I was a fan the first time, went there and did my thing
and the public went batshiat crazy over it
now that we have LESS reason to get into the middle of this crap again
there is no outcry

reason #412 why I stopped giving a damn
 
2013-09-04 04:55:23 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: I wonder how many people who supported an all out INVASION of Iraq over the mere POSSIBILITY that they possessed WMD are now ripping their hair out in anger over a limited air campaign against a regime that is actually USING WMD. I'm on the fence over this whole thing, but biatchslapping a POS like Assad and showing a zero tolerance policy toward regimes that massacre people with chemical weapons isn't something I'm going to lose sleep over.


Exactly! We made a bad decision before, so let's KEEP MAKING BAD DECISIONS!!!

/Let's kill us some A-rabs WOOO!
//Americuh, FARK YEAH!
 
2013-09-04 04:55:33 PM  

farkinglizardking: uber humper: Gunny Highway: barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!

Why would Assad use chemical weapons.  It makes no sense to me.  I am suggesting he didnt but it seems like a stupid move considering Obama made chemical weapons "The Red Line."  Why would he want to force the US' hand?

They were used back in June and nothing happened. So, why not do it again. "What red line?"

On the other hand, some rebels were found with sarin around the same time.

The rebels were found with sarin, but I guess this instance involves the chemicals being delivered by missile, something that's thought to be outside the capabilities of the rebels.

That being said, I have no clue who to actually believe. I wouldn't put it past our government to fabricate evidence, but I also don't want to side with Putin.

This conflict will have no clear winners. A pyrrhic victory for all sides involved


No clear winners, no clear goals for the US. LIke deja vu all over again.
 
2013-09-04 04:55:38 PM  
Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.
 
2013-09-04 04:56:25 PM  

ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?


The Post has better spelling and actually admits some errors.  The Times is straight up Moonie, the Post is straight up DC Villagers.
 
2013-09-04 04:56:56 PM  

uber humper: farkinglizardking: uber humper: Gunny Highway: barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!

Why would Assad use chemical weapons.  It makes no sense to me.  I am suggesting he didnt but it seems like a stupid move considering Obama made chemical weapons "The Red Line."  Why would he want to force the US' hand?

They were used back in June and nothing happened. So, why not do it again. "What red line?"

On the other hand, some rebels were found with sarin around the same time.

The rebels were found with sarin, but I guess this instance involves the chemicals being delivered by missile, something that's thought to be outside the capabilities of the rebels.

That being said, I have no clue who to actually believe. I wouldn't put it past our government to fabricate evidence, but I also don't want to side with Putin.

This conflict will have no clear winners. A pyrrhic victory for all sides involved

No clear winners, no clear goals for the US. LIke deja vu all over again.


The U.S. has always been at war with Eastasia...
 
2013-09-04 04:57:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Smeggy Smurf: WhoopAssWayne: I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.

He's going to smack a biatch with it

Hooray racism!


Against Mexicans?
 
2013-09-04 04:58:06 PM  

justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.


I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?
 
2013-09-04 04:58:27 PM  
But I'm watching CSPAN and kerry just said there would be no boots on the ground. Damn, he sure can lie with a straight face.
 
2013-09-04 04:58:40 PM  

Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]



Said no one ever except chilito as he crafted his best strawman.
 
2013-09-04 04:58:46 PM  
If they draft you come to Canada we would be glad to have ya
 
2013-09-04 04:59:02 PM  
People do realize that the full senate has not voted on shiat, nor has the house? Wait same group of idiots that rush to blame literally everything on Obama and blow up every action he does into a "war on *blank*" nevermind.
 
2013-09-04 04:59:36 PM  
www.breitbart.com
 
2013-09-04 05:00:01 PM  

justinguarini4ever: RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)

It's sad what people think is "legal" anymore. I hate to break it to you, but the War Powers Resolution is still the law of the land. Presidents don't get to decide what is legal and what isn't legal. In no way does the current clusterfark in Syria trigger the conditions for action under the WPR.



Its "legal" if you can do it and get away with it.  And who's going to stand up to the President?  Nobody, that's who.  Short of naming himself Emperor (and maybe even then...), the President can probably do just about anything he likes.  Bush did -- he served 2 terms and is now living comfortably in retirement.

/ besides, there are more opportunities for a quick profit in war than there are in peace, so Congress has about zero motivation to flex their muscles when they could just go along with Obama and beat the drum (after loading up on defense stocks, of course)
 
2013-09-04 05:00:17 PM  

Pinner: Looking like a fool with your boots on the ground.


How will that even help if they don't put the soldiers in the boots?
 
2013-09-04 05:00:35 PM  
I think commander Shepard would approve of this support against saren....erm sarin.
 
2013-09-04 05:00:48 PM  
We need to return to a simpler time ...

Like how the Pharaohs of Egypt used to lead their troop into battle.

We need Obama and the Congress right up there in front.
 
2013-09-04 05:00:49 PM  

justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.


No, this time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us. Libya was a multinational fark up
 
2013-09-04 05:00:50 PM  

darth_badger: But I'm watching CSPAN and kerry just said there would be no boots on the ground. Damn, he sure can lie with a straight face.


Its not a lie, just delayed truth.  He'll be for the troops after he was against them.
 
2013-09-04 05:01:11 PM  

farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?


That the same exact argument was said about Libya, that we would have a huge war and put boots on the ground.

Conveniently all Republicans are ignoring being wrong there and the obvious similarities to Syria. Derpers gotta derp as long as it presents an opportunity for low-information outrage against Obama.
 
2013-09-04 05:01:13 PM  

farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?


That he decides how he feels about going to war based on who is President.
 
2013-09-04 05:01:27 PM  

Jacobin: Pinner: Looking like a fool with your boots on the ground.

How will that even help if they don't put the soldiers in the boots?


I'm sure a lot of those refugees are probably barefoot, and there's a lot to cut your feet in a warzone. They need the boots
 
2013-09-04 05:01:49 PM  

patrick767: Whexican: ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"

Its the one you don't agree with.

Because the Moonie Times is clearly on the same level as the 47 Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post (six in one year in 2008).


I think homey was referring to the New York Times versus the New York Post.  There's a clear distinction there.
 
2013-09-04 05:02:11 PM  
Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no
Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no
 
2013-09-04 05:02:24 PM  

umad: /Let's kill us some A-rabs WOOO!


Syrians aren't Arabs.
 
2013-09-04 05:02:40 PM  

uber humper: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

No, this time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us. Libya was a multinational fark up


This is what retards actually desperately need to think.
 
2013-09-04 05:03:03 PM  
I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.
 
2013-09-04 05:04:17 PM  

justtray: farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?

That the same exact argument was said about Libya, that we would have a huge war and put boots on the ground.

Conveniently all Republicans are ignoring being wrong there and the obvious similarities to Syria. Derpers gotta derp as long as it presents an opportunity for low-information outrage against Obama.


Or maybe there are just those among us Farkers who disapprove of unprovoked attacks on foreign countries, regardless of which president orders it.  There's no reason to twist such a consistent & straightforward position into a perceived attack on your favorite politician.
 
2013-09-04 05:04:19 PM  

Guadior42: mbillips: My favorite part of the "analysis" you see about this is the dumbasses who think there's been no shift in defense policy between Bush and Obama. Obama is NOT going to go in heavy, ANYWHERE. The Obama doctrine has been very clearly defined: Light footprint involving special forces only, heavy use of air power, maximum use of signals intelligence. The only way he'd put boots on the ground would be to insert Green Berets amongst the resistance, or to send a SEAL team to schwack somebody, and neither of those are likely given the lethality of the environment. Whatever Congress passes is moot; Obama's going to do a Clinton-style cruise-missile shower, and wait for Syria to make the next move.

Assad better not get too cocky with the public appearances, because if we know exactly where he is, I can definitely see an attempt to put a warhead on his forehead.

That's how we started in Vietnam.

/I hope I'm wrong
//I doubt it.
///slashies for change


Robert McNamara is dead. The SecDef and SecState are both Vietnam vets. We aren't going down that road; we're not even going to look at the signposts that LEAD down that road. This is just more '90s style missile lobbing; errbody needs to calm their asses down.
 
2013-09-04 05:04:46 PM  

uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.


I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-04 05:04:48 PM  

WhyteRaven74: umad: /Let's kill us some A-rabs WOOO!

Syrians aren't Arabs.


Whatever. Killin' is killin'. It's all a good time to me. Let's kill us some Sy-rans WOOO!
 
2013-09-04 05:05:03 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.


If I remember correctly, those 'advisors' were a combination of CIA spooks and Green Berets. The details aren't really important. Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.
 
2013-09-04 05:05:15 PM  

Sentient: I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.


Naw, there are plenty of us. We just haven't taken the White House yet.
 
2013-09-04 05:05:30 PM  

justtray: uber humper: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

No, this time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us. Libya was a multinational fark up

This is what retards actually desperately need to think.


What?

Are other countries going in with us?

Is Libya not a lawless shiathole ,right about now?
 
2013-09-04 05:05:40 PM  

darth_badger: But I'm watching CSPAN and kerry just said there would be no boots on the ground. Damn, he sure can lie with a straight face.


While that general sitting next to him has said differently about how to actually contain Syrias chemical weapons just a few short months ago...

"This option uses lethal force to prevent the use or proliferation of chemical weapons. We do this by destroying portions of Syria's massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components. At a minimum, this option would call for a no-fly zone as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers. Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites. Costs could also average well over one billion dollars per month. The impact would be the control of some, but not all chemical weapons. It would also help prevent their further proliferation into the hands of extremist groups. Our inability to fully control Syria's storage and delivery systems could allow extremists to gain better access. Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added risk of U.S. boots on the ground. "

(emphasis mine). Link.

These people are talking from both sides of their mouths.
 
2013-09-04 05:06:41 PM  

Sentient: I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.


No one has actually suggested going to war in Syria. The only people talking about that are the ones who want to engage hand wringing as if it were the only course of action.
 
2013-09-04 05:06:57 PM  
revelationnow.net
 
2013-09-04 05:07:22 PM  

WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.


French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should
 
2013-09-04 05:07:29 PM  

Guadior42: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

If I remember correctly, those 'advisors' were a combination of CIA spooks and Green Berets. The details aren't really important. Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.


"Inevitable?" You mean the way we intervened and completely farked up Japan, Germany, Austria, Northern Ireland, the Balkans and South Korea?

blog.angelatung.com
 
2013-09-04 05:08:00 PM  

Wangiss: patrick767: Whexican: ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"

Its the one you don't agree with.

Because the Moonie Times is clearly on the same level as the 47 Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post (six in one year in 2008).

I think homey was referring to the New York Times versus the New York Post.  There's a clear distinction there.


Why would you think that in Washington Times thread?
 
2013-09-04 05:08:20 PM  
Tell me again why we're even talking about taking a side in this thing? I'd be equally happy if both the Christian-slaughtering terrorist backers and the ruling despotic thug went poof. That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.
 
2013-09-04 05:08:45 PM  

uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should


Correcting myself, looks like the French might. TBD
 
2013-09-04 05:09:43 PM  

ZoeNekros: Wangiss:I think homey was referring to the New York Times versus the New York Post.  There's a clear distinction there.

Why would you think that in Washington Times thread?


Because if you don't think that, you are only doing it because you hate Obama.
 
2013-09-04 05:09:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Elegy: Hah, you've got to be kidding subby. TFA clearly states the senate resolution specifically denies the opportunity for Obama to put boots on the ground, unless he uses the "loophole" in the poorly structured legal language written into the bill to push his powers beyond the scopw of what was duly authorized by congress.

Boots are on the ground, meat.
The 1st Armored Division is in Jordan and has been since spring.


they aren't fighting though. they're helping with the refugee crisis.
 
2013-09-04 05:10:00 PM  

Guadior42: Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.


Please point out anything anywhere that says we're going in anywhere as opposed to launching some cruise missiles and air strikes?

uber humper: Is Libya not a lawless shiathole ,right about now?


It's not.
 
2013-09-04 05:10:11 PM  

uber humper: Is Libya not a lawless shiathole ,right about now?


now now- its not JUST a lawless shathole ruled by islamic and tribal militias- its also supplying weapons to hard right groups in places like Mali, allowing them to turn other areas into lawless shetholes!
 
2013-09-04 05:10:39 PM  
Whether or not we intervene, when all is said and done Syria will be a humanitarian and political clusterfark.

However, we have a lot of missiles just sitting around. We need to do something with them. And those warships are just treading water
 
2013-09-04 05:11:22 PM  

jjorsett: Tell me again why we're even talking about taking a side in this thing? I'd be equally happy if both the Christian-slaughtering terrorist backers and the ruling despotic thug went poof. That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.


Because they have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, and that supply either remains in the hands of the despotic thug that's been using them, or potentially falls into the hands of Islamist groups.  Wherever those weapons end up, it's not going to be good for us.
 
2013-09-04 05:11:30 PM  

jjorsett: That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.


There's more than two sides to it.
 
2013-09-04 05:12:06 PM  

Radioactive Ass: darth_badger: But I'm watching CSPAN and kerry just said there would be no boots on the ground. Damn, he sure can lie with a straight face.

While that general sitting next to him has said differently about how to actually contain Syrias chemical weapons just a few short months ago...

"This option uses lethal force to prevent the use or proliferation of chemical weapons. We do this by destroying portions of Syria's massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components. At a minimum, this option would call for a no-fly zone as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers. Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites. Costs could also average well over one billion dollars per month. The impact would be the control of some, but not all chemical weapons. It would also help prevent their further proliferation into the hands of extremist groups. Our inability to fully control Syria's storage and delivery systems could allow extremists to gain better access. Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added risk of U.S. boots on the ground. "

(emphasis mine). Link.

These people are talking from both sides of their mouths.


And that bastard child of Fred Gwynn pops his "P's" on the microphone.
 
2013-09-04 05:13:38 PM  
vudukungfu: snip

 /Apologies to Country Joe Mac Donald.

That's awesome.
 
2013-09-04 05:13:44 PM  

farkinglizardking: Whether or not we intervene, when all is said and done Syria will be a humanitarian and political clusterfark.

However, we have a lot of missiles just sitting around. We need to do something with them. And those warships are just treading  displacing water



FTFY
 
2013-09-04 05:14:40 PM  

Guadior42: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

If I remember correctly, those 'advisors' were a combination of CIA spooks and Green Berets. The details aren't really important. Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.


They were. Regular Army and DoD personnel went in too. The point is that the escalation doesn't start with combat troops.  It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.
 
2013-09-04 05:14:45 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: jjorsett: Tell me again why we're even talking about taking a side in this thing? I'd be equally happy if both the Christian-slaughtering terrorist backers and the ruling despotic thug went poof. That we'd want to spend money and potentially lives helping either one is nutso.

Because they have the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, and that supply either remains in the hands of the despotic thug that's been using them, or potentially falls into the hands of Islamist groups.  Wherever those weapons end up, it's not going to be good for us.


Outside of us putting boots on the ground (which despite the derpline is not in consideration) those weapons will not be secured.

The only solace I take is that chemical weapons have a short shelf life, and the people taking them probably are more likely to kill themselves than other people.
 
2013-09-04 05:14:54 PM  
Well, if we are going to start a war with Syria (a very bad idea), then let's not fark around about it.  Start by telling the Syrian government that they have until a date to surrender and no one dies.  If that date comes and no surrender, then the following day we bomb one civilian city (level every building, do what we can to turn said city into a smoking crater).  Ask the Syrian government "Do you surrender or do we turn another randomly selected city into a memory?"  Repeat until they surrender or until Syria looks like the moon (lifeless and full of craters).  Not put the life of a single U.S. service man into the nation until they have either been reduced to that nation of craters or until they've surrendered and member of the government and military has surrendered their weapon and it's been made clear to the entire civilian population that anyone with a weapon will be shot first and disarmed second.

But, as I typed the above, the question hit me, "What would the U.S. get if Syria surrendered?"  And then I thought about it and, it's so farking pointless.  We went into Iraq, we ousted Saddam, the people cheered.  They didn't cheer because they were going to have U.S. style democracy, they cheered that someone took out Saddam.  After 10 years of being there, we're leaving and NOTHING has changed...well, aside from those who were changed from living to dead as a result of combat.  Nothing is going to change by going into Syria.  People will die, those in charge will be removed, and that will be the only change.  They don't want to be like us, so if that's the goal, it's a pointless one, and one that we should have learned not to strive for.

I really wish the U.S. would change it's policy from helping out every country on the planet to an inward focused "USA first" policy.  Instead of sending billions of dollars in disaster relief to other nations, let's save it and use it on our own people when we get hit by disaster, or put that money into our nation's healthcare.  Another nation uses chemical gas against it's population, let that population deal with it instead of us getting involved in another nation's civil war.  Before we should go around the planet telling others how to behave and act, let's fix our own national problems so we can be that world leader.
 
2013-09-04 05:16:29 PM  

Great Janitor: I really wish the U.S. would change it's policy from helping out every country on the planet to an inward focused "USA first" policy.


We can do both.
 
2013-09-04 05:16:34 PM  

uber humper: Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x279]


It's worse than that.
The CHECHENS have the most advanced Navy in the world.
Putin's not going to like this.
 
2013-09-04 05:17:06 PM  

mbillips: Assad better not get too cocky with the public appearances, because if we know exactly where he is, I can definitely see an attempt to put a warhead on his forehead.


No - we're specifically avoiding killing him. We don't want that kind of power vacuum.
 
2013-09-04 05:17:06 PM  
Radioactive Ass:

These people are talking from both sides of their mouths.

Of course they are. They're politicians.
 
2013-09-04 05:17:34 PM  
A bunch of lawyers, writing something that isn't riddled with holes - say it ain't so!
 
2013-09-04 05:18:45 PM  

Hobodeluxe: HotIgneous Intruder: Elegy: Hah, you've got to be kidding subby. TFA clearly states the senate resolution specifically denies the opportunity for Obama to put boots on the ground, unless he uses the "loophole" in the poorly structured legal language written into the bill to push his powers beyond the scopw of what was duly authorized by congress.

Boots are on the ground, meat.
The 1st Armored Division is in Jordan and has been since spring.

they aren't fighting though. they're helping with the refugee crisis.


Right. The last thing troops should do is fight.
HInt: It's why they're called, "troops."
 
2013-09-04 05:18:48 PM  
big.assets.huffingtonpost.com
 
2013-09-04 05:18:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Guadior42: Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.

Please point out anything anywhere that says we're going in anywhere as opposed to launching some cruise missiles and air strikes?

uber humper: Is Libya not a lawless shiathole ,right about now?

It's not.


I'm not there myself so I go by what I read. Libya has all but quit producing oil, militias rule a good part of the country

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all -t hought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-879704 1.html
-published about an hour ago
 
2013-09-04 05:19:42 PM  

jshine: justtray: farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?

That the same exact argument was said about Libya, that we would have a huge war and put boots on the ground.

Conveniently all Republicans are ignoring being wrong there and the obvious similarities to Syria. Derpers gotta derp as long as it presents an opportunity for low-information outrage against Obama.

Or maybe there are just those among us Farkers who disapprove of unprovoked attacks on foreign countries, regardless of which president orders it.  There's no reason to twist such a consistent & straightforward position into a perceived attack on your favorite politician.


First, I noticed you didn't address the Libya comparison. I wonder why that is. Kind of totally destroys your false narrative of boots going on the ground in some war occupation.

Secondly, while I'm only almost certain your own position on attacks on foreign countries IS entirely depedent on which political party orders it, for me it is not quite so simple. It's actually based on situation, evidence, and reason.

I can say honestly that I never voted for Obama in either election, but that I find the attacks on his presidency to be entirely without a shred of merit. Not on NSA Spying, Drone Strikes, International Relations, Government Policy, etc. It's just a bunch of really economic, technical, and internationally retarded people with opinions based entirely in irrational paranoia and political bias.

I was for the war in Afghanistan because it seemed to be the hub of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, while not liking the idea of attacking a country for the sole purpose of eliminating one terrorst sect. I was entirely against the war in Iraq because it was based on false pretenses, with no real need for urgency, in a ground occupation with no actual goal. If we were going to attack Iraq, why not North Korea, who posed(poses still) a much higher threat than Iraq ever would?
 
2013-09-04 05:19:51 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.


You realize there was no Vietnam back then? There was a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam. The whole mess in Vietnam was at the end of the day because the French refused to let South Vietnam vote for reunification. Ho Chi Minh figured if he couldn't get an election to achieve it, he'd get the North Vietnamese military to do it. The parallels between Vietnam and Syria are limited to both being countries in Asia.
 
2013-09-04 05:20:29 PM  

uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should


Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.
 
2013-09-04 05:20:58 PM  
t2.gstatic.com

Gee, the Fark pants-shiatting brigade is out in force today.  Guess what gurlz - if chemical weapons were used, we're going in.  Deal with it.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
 
2013-09-04 05:21:31 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

If I remember correctly, those 'advisors' were a combination of CIA spooks and Green Berets. The details aren't really important. Yet again, we're going in to fix somebody else's problems with the inevitable result that we will create more problems and create more enemies.

They were. Regular Army and DoD personnel went in too. The point is that the escalation doesn't start with combat troops.  It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.


I think we are on the same page. It smells like another quagmire, and I don't mean:

media.screened.com

/everything old is new again
 
2013-09-04 05:21:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: uber humper: Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x279]

It's worse than that.
The CHECHENS have the most advanced Navy in the world.
Putin's not going to like this.


I wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?
 
2013-09-04 05:22:25 PM  

21-7-b: uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should

Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.


I corrected myself a couple posts down
 
2013-09-04 05:23:17 PM  

uber humper: 21-7-b: uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should

Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.

I corrected myself a couple posts down


Sorry, missed that
 
2013-09-04 05:23:44 PM  

uber humper: HotIgneous Intruder: uber humper: Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x279]

It's worse than that.
The CHECHENS have the most advanced Navy in the world.
Putin's not going to like this.

I wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?


Anyways, everyone knows Chechens can't fly
 
2013-09-04 05:24:20 PM  

21-7-b: uber humper: 21-7-b: uber humper: WhyteRaven74: uber humper: his time we'll be going at it alone with the rest of the world condemning us.

I can't imagine Turkey having an issue with this. Also the French were rumored to be thinking of just bombing Syria themselves. And the Saudis aren't exactly thrilled with the use of chemical weapons.

French pulled out days ago.  http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-france-syria-debate-20 1 30904,0,6145517.story

I don't consider Turkey, maybe I should

Your link says that the French position is that inaction is not an option, not that they pulled out.

I corrected myself a couple posts down

Sorry, missed that


We're getting too polite around here
 
2013-09-04 05:24:42 PM  

Guadior42: It smells like another quagmire,


So, despite the provision in the Authorization of Force specifically prohibiting troops on the ground, apart from special forces in very specific circumstances, we're going to be dumping thousands of troops on the ground and are going to turn this into another Vietnam?

Stop being stupid.
 
2013-09-04 05:25:48 PM  

uber humper: wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?


They were such dreamy looking dupes!
 
2013-09-04 05:26:56 PM  

justtray: jshine: justtray: farkinglizardking: justtray: Just like Libya, right 'tards?

Lets go for a record on how many conservative, low information farkers will comment on a false headline.

I know you're trying to make some grand point, but what is it?

That the same exact argument was said about Libya, that we would have a huge war and put boots on the ground.

Conveniently all Republicans are ignoring being wrong there and the obvious similarities to Syria. Derpers gotta derp as long as it presents an opportunity for low-information outrage against Obama.

Or maybe there are just those among us Farkers who disapprove of unprovoked attacks on foreign countries, regardless of which president orders it.  There's no reason to twist such a consistent & straightforward position into a perceived attack on your favorite politician.

First, I noticed you didn't address the Libya comparison. I wonder why that is. Kind of totally destroys your false narrative of boots going on the ground in some war occupation.

Secondly, while I'm only almost certain your own position on attacks on foreign countries IS entirely depedent on which political party orders it, for me it is not quite so simple. It's actually based on situation, evidence, and reason.

I can say honestly that I never voted for Obama in either election, but that I find the attacks on his presidency to be entirely without a shred of merit. Not on NSA Spying, Drone Strikes, International Relations, Government Policy, etc. It's just a bunch of really economic, technical, and internationally retarded people with opinions based entirely in irrational paranoia and political bias.

I was for the war in Afghanistan because it seemed to be the hub of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, while not liking the idea of attacking a country for the sole purpose of eliminating one terrorst sect. I was entirely against the war in Iraq because it was based on false pretenses, with no real need for urgency, in a ground occupation with no a ...


First, I don't really care whether there are boots on the ground or not; I'd disapprove either way.  So that isn't a salient issue as far as I'm concerned.

Second, I disapproved just as strongly of Bush's actions and I did vote for Obama.  I'm entirely on-board with most of his other policies, and feel Obamacare didn't go far enough (i.e., single-payer), so no, this really isn't a partisan thing with me.  I'm generally a Democrat.  Believe it or not, it really is a matter of policy & principle, not politics.

/ though I do agree with you on Afghanistan; for all practical purposes, they did attack us first
// though that's about all we seem to share in common
 
2013-09-04 05:29:23 PM  

cptjeff: So, despite the provision in the Authorization of Force specifically prohibiting troops on the ground, apart from special forces in very specific circumstances, we're going to be dumping thousands of troops on the ground and are going to turn this into another Vietnam?

Stop being stupid.


The old proverb "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." has been around for centuries. To bad people keep forgetting it when it's convenient for their own causes.
 
2013-09-04 05:29:25 PM  
Boots on the ground? I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. Flip floppers.
 
2013-09-04 05:30:40 PM  
The resolution puts a 60-day limit on Mr. Obama's ability to conduct strikes, while allowing him one 30-day extension of that authority.

LOL, this is like the facebook post I saw an image of where some guy is wanting to sell his iphone for "...$110-$125..."
 
2013-09-04 05:30:47 PM  

Chilito:


That sums it up nicely.
 
2013-09-04 05:31:11 PM  

Snarfangel: Boots on the ground? I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. Flip floppers.


Flip floppers? That's a croc.
 
2013-09-04 05:31:21 PM  

WhyteRaven74: shifty lookin bleeder: It starts with what will be called 'trainers' or 'technical experts' or some other antiseptic euphemism that the Pentagon comes up with to avoid obvious parallels with Vietnam.

You realize there was no Vietnam back then? There was a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam. The whole mess in Vietnam was at the end of the day because the French refused to let South Vietnam vote for reunification. Ho Chi Minh figured if he couldn't get an election to achieve it, he'd get the North Vietnamese military to do it. The parallels between Vietnam and Syria are limited to both being countries in Asia.


You realize that post isn't a treatise on the history of colonialism in Southeast Asia and is merely a hypothetical example of how limited engagement can progress to hopeless quagmire without much public contemplation?

Although you are missing a obvious parallel that does currently exist between Syria and Vietnam in that the contemplated actions have no strategic military purpose and are primarily focused on making sure the US doesn't look weak.
 
2013-09-04 05:31:54 PM  

darth_badger: uber humper: wonder if they know the Tsarnaev brothers?

They were such dreamy looking dupes!


Yea... I get lost in the young one's eyes
 
2013-09-04 05:33:20 PM  

Sentient: I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.


I'm with you.
 
2013-09-04 05:40:48 PM  
Meet the old boss same as the new boss
 
2013-09-04 05:41:18 PM  

ZoeNekros: Wangiss: patrick767: Whexican: ZoeNekros: I forget. Is Times or Post the derpy one?

/I didn't even bother reading. The last article I read said the resolution strictly forbid boots on the ground.
//I suppose they might mean it included the phrase, "boots on the ground", and neglected to mention that it was preceded by "no"

Its the one you don't agree with.

Because the Moonie Times is clearly on the same level as the 47 Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post (six in one year in 2008).

I think homey was referring to the New York Times versus the New York Post.  There's a clear distinction there.

Why would you think that in Washington Times thread?


I was assuming the reader was off base.  I was basing that thought on "I didn't even bother reading."
 
2013-09-04 05:41:20 PM  

Radioactive Ass: cptjeff: So, despite the provision in the Authorization of Force specifically prohibiting troops on the ground, apart from special forces in very specific circumstances, we're going to be dumping thousands of troops on the ground and are going to turn this into another Vietnam?

Stop being stupid.

The old proverb "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." has been around for centuries. To bad people keep forgetting it when it's convenient for their own causes.


Some of us like to actually weigh the facts and situation at hand before immediately hysterically proclaiming that things specifically prohibited in a bill will inevitably happen despite that prohibition.

We're not going to be putting boots on the ground in Syria. Absolutely no one wants to see that happen. Not Congress, not the President, not the Military, not John Kerry... You see this great big threat of another Vietnam, but it's just not there. You're imagining it. The Moonie Times and dumbassmitter are lying to you.
 
2013-09-04 05:43:51 PM  
This war brought to you by our friends, AIPAC.
 
2013-09-04 05:44:45 PM  
I heard Obama was going to strike Syria but then CNN called and told him Wolf Blitzer had scheduled time off for vacation, yada yada yada, you can't start a war without Blitzer yada yada yada so everything is on hold until Wolf gets back from holiday and CNN gets the war coverage opportunity that they paid for.
 
2013-09-04 05:45:25 PM  

cptjeff: Some of us like to actually weigh the facts and situation at hand before immediately hysterically proclaiming that things specifically prohibited in a bill will inevitably happen despite that prohibition.



http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/uk-syria-crisis-usa-idUKBRE9 8 303G20130904">http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/uk-syria-crisi s-usa-idUKBRE98 303G20130904

"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," Kerry told the committee.
But when Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the committee, told Kerry he "didn't find that a very appropriate response regarding boots on the ground," Kerry quickly, and repeatedly, backtracked.
Kerry said he was simply "thinking out loud" and raising a hypothetical situation, but he did not want to leave the door open to sending ground troops to Syria.

but i mean, he's just thinking out loud about how we might eventually need to put boots on the ground past this specific authorization, so don't worry.
 
2013-09-04 05:45:56 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Great Janitor: I really wish the U.S. would change it's policy from helping out every country on the planet to an inward focused "USA first" policy.

We can do both.


Sure - but wouldn't it be great if we could exclude 'fire cruise missiles at' from our definition of 'help'?
 
2013-09-04 05:49:02 PM  

Wangiss: Sentient: I don't want to go to war in Syria. I don't really want to get involved in any more wars at all. In fact, I'd kind of like to just stop attacking other nations altogether. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who thinks this way, and I find that depressing.

I'm with you.


There's lots with you, but if a person is elected to US congress, they go through a retraining program that makes them power-mongers. They are programmed to go to war to save their jobs.

/War! What is it good for?
//Thousands dead in Arabian sand
///Wave the flag for those who about to die
///Phase IV
 
2013-09-04 05:50:04 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I hope the first platoon that goes into combat in Syria consists of the sons and daughters of US Senators. And that they are led by the 1rst Regimental British Petroleum Combat Engineers.


If the government demographics of the combat arms (infantry, artillery and armor -in order of importance) are still up to date it will be predominately white males from red state, middle class families so progressives should not have any problem with this.
 
2013-09-04 05:51:18 PM  

hasty ambush: TheShavingofOccam123: I hope the first platoon that goes into combat in Syria consists of the sons and daughters of US Senators. And that they are led by the 1rst Regimental British Petroleum Combat Engineers.

If the government demographics of the combat arms (infantry, artillery and armor -in order of importance) are still up to date it will be predominately white males from red state, middle class families so progressives should not have any problem with this.


As an american progressive I'm saddened anytime a member of the US military is killed whether they came from a red state or a blue state. Especially in a war we have no reason for being in.
 
2013-09-04 05:59:34 PM  
i.usatoday.net
jta-live.alley.ws
 
2013-09-04 06:03:36 PM  
Writing the actual language to empower and constrain Mr. Obama is proving to be a difficult task

"Under no circumstances whatsoever are American ground forces allowed to enter Syria."

How difficult was that, exactly?
 
2013-09-04 06:04:12 PM  
www.citybirds.com

Boots on the Ground
 
2013-09-04 06:05:21 PM  

cptjeff: Some of us like to actually weigh the facts and situation at hand before immediately hysterically proclaiming that things specifically prohibited in a bill will inevitably happen despite that prohibition.

We're not going to be putting boots on the ground in Syria. Absolutely no one wants to see that happen. Not Congress, not the President, not the Military, not John Kerry... You see this great big threat of another Vietnam, but it's just not there. You're imagining it. The Moonie Times and dumbassmitter are lying to you.


Read my post above about what the General sitting next to Kerry in the hearings has said on the matter this past June. They know exactly where this is going to lead and are going to get there by hook or by crook. Here, read it for yourself...
 
2013-09-04 06:15:12 PM  

Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]


Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.
 
2013-09-04 06:18:00 PM  

Radioactive Ass: cptjeff: Some of us like to actually weigh the facts and situation at hand before immediately hysterically proclaiming that things specifically prohibited in a bill will inevitably happen despite that prohibition.

We're not going to be putting boots on the ground in Syria. Absolutely no one wants to see that happen. Not Congress, not the President, not the Military, not John Kerry... You see this great big threat of another Vietnam, but it's just not there. You're imagining it. The Moonie Times and dumbassmitter are lying to you.

Read my post above about what the General sitting next to Kerry in the hearings has said on the matter this past June. They know exactly where this is going to lead and are going to get there by hook or by crook. Here, read it for yourself...


Hey, just thinking how we all might be able to claim your Fark handle in the future.
 
2013-09-04 06:24:09 PM  
 
2013-09-04 06:24:19 PM  
Yep, looks like we're backing the bad guys. Cheeus.
 
2013-09-04 06:26:58 PM  

barkingatthemoon: So let me get this straight.  We are going to Syria to attack them for using Chemical Weapons on the Rebels...basically assisting the Rebels in their fight against the government and the Rebels are: Al Qaeda the very group that has been responsible for multiple attacks including attacking the United States... incidentally this is the same Group we supported in the Afghanistan/Russian dust up and they attacked up later using the training and ideas we gave them...so I guess we've come full circle now!


Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
 
2013-09-04 06:30:16 PM  

Matthew Keene: [wilson.house.gov image 401x301]
[www.washingtoncitypaper.com image 850x425][img.gawkerassets.com image 800x338]


Yeah, D.C. has been broke for a while. No money for building maintenance under sequestration.
 
2013-09-04 06:32:29 PM  
Hurray for Obama and the Democrats leading America into a shiny, new war in the Middle East. And I bet some of you voted for "change".

For the love of country, buck the two-party (same people) system and consider voting Libertarian next election before the day comes when the pols in office get us all killed.
 
2013-09-04 06:32:46 PM  

mbillips: . Obama is NOT going to go in heavy, ANYWHERE. The Obama doctrine has been very clearly defined: Light footprint involving special forces only, heavy use of air power, maximum use of signals intelligence. The only way he'd put boots on the ground would be to insert Green Berets amongst the resistance, or to send a SEAL team to schwack somebody, and neither of those are likely given the lethality of the environment. Whatever Congress passes is moot; Obama's going to do a Clinton-style cruise-missile shower, and wait for Syria to make the next move.


No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.
 
2013-09-04 06:36:22 PM  
Obiwan will have to prove he has a ballsack now.
Plus, Israel is on board.
We begin bombing in thirty minutes.

Shall we all cheer on the Chechen islamic militants?
 
2013-09-04 06:37:22 PM  
If Obama bombs Assad's forces, won't he be guilty of giving aid and support to terrorists?
 
2013-09-04 06:42:17 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: If Obama bombs Assad's forces, won't he be guilty of giving aid and support to terrorists?


FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Also, Reagan.
 
2013-09-04 06:44:12 PM  
The only "boots" will be recon for target spotting.
We're going to blow stuff up to punish Assad for the use of Chemical weapons, no other reason.
Someone needs to enforce that law, or every tin dictator on the globe will start gassing things.  We're the ones that can do it, so it's our job to do it.

We don't care about Syria, the people involved, or their pathetic little war.

Facts, how do they work?
 
2013-09-04 06:44:43 PM  

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


Yes, how can we  think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.
 
2013-09-04 06:48:03 PM  

bluorangefyre: So maybe the Senate wants a war but it'll die in the House.


One hundred senators are easier to buy than the entire house of representatives.

/Israel.
//Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, etc.
 
2013-09-04 06:48:04 PM  

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


And if Congress votes down an authorization to use force, then what?

Personally, I hope they do, just to see Obama attempt to explain why he's defying both the will of Congress and the American people on this issue.
 
2013-09-04 06:48:51 PM  
Obama's been in way over his head from jump street.
 
2013-09-04 06:51:34 PM  

ds615: The only "boots" will be recon for target spotting.
We're going to blow stuff up to punish Assad for the use of Chemical weapons, no other reason.
Someone needs to enforce that law, or every tin dictator on the globe will start gassing things.  We're the ones that can do it, so it's our job to do it.

We don't care about Syria, the people involved, or their pathetic little war.

Facts, how do they work?


If I were part of a nation that got bombed because our evil overlord, whom I can do little to nothing to overthrow, killed a bunch of my countrymen... I would want the country that attacked mine to die in a fire forever.  Just me.
 
2013-09-04 06:51:46 PM  

PsiChick: Yes, how can we think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.


Clearly you are a racist or something...

/what? That's been the standard retort for anyone who has opposed Obama in the past
 
2013-09-04 06:52:44 PM  

ds615: Facts, how do they work?


Facts.
Russia has been supporting Assad because he likes to kill the Chechen and other islamic militants, who make up a huge part of the rebel trying to take him down.
The Chechens are the Russians' own al Qaeda and bin Laden representatives.
Putin won't let Assad go down so that the militants can establish an islamic state in Syria.

This is exactly how world wars get started.
All you need is a step-and fetch it stupid US president who plays checkers instead of chess.
 
2013-09-04 06:52:45 PM  
I watched Vietnam in HD the other day and was struck by the increase in combat duty for the average infantryman.

In WWII, the average infantryman saw 10 days of combat per 1 year of service. In Vietnam, the average infantryman saw 240 days of combat per 1 year of service.

Based on that and the 15 month repeated combat tours with no time off in the Iraq War, I estimate we will deploy a total force in Syria of 5 squads of 3 personnel each. They will stay in theater for 10 years and rotate one squad out of combat every 3 years, whether they need it or not. Replacements will be unnecessary as the local population will greet us with open arms and leap in front of any rounds or shrapnel that threaten our 15 man military machine.
 
2013-09-04 06:56:15 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: In Vietnam, the average infantryman saw 240 days of combat per 1 year of service.


In Vietnam, the average age of the combat soldier was nineteen, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na nineteen.
War is FUN.

LET's GO AMERICA!
 
2013-09-04 06:56:34 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I watched Vietnam in HD the other day and was struck by the increase in combat duty for the average infantryman.

In WWII, the average infantryman saw 10 days of combat per 1 year of service. In Vietnam, the average infantryman saw 240 days of combat per 1 year of service.

Based on that and the 15 month repeated combat tours with no time off in the Iraq War, I estimate we will deploy a total force in Syria of 5 squads of 3 personnel each. They will stay in theater for 10 years and rotate one squad out of combat every 3 years, whether they need it or not. Replacements will be unnecessary as the local population will greet us with open arms and leap in front of any rounds or shrapnel that threaten our 15 man military machine.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-09-04 06:57:05 PM  
upl.co
 
2013-09-04 06:59:41 PM  
Between this and the Ariel Castro story from earlier, we're one link away from a rare "unable to put boots on ground" trifecta.
 
2013-09-04 07:01:41 PM  

mwfark: For the love of country, buck the two-party (same people) system and consider voting Libertarian next election before the day comes when the pols in office get us all killed.


I'd vote for either a right or left libertarian at this point, but I still wouldn't  faith in them to uphold their stated beliefs. Power corrupts. Stop making positions that give people extra power is the only solution I see, but that will never happen.
 
2013-09-04 07:10:17 PM  
Obama the Leo.
 
2013-09-04 07:10:32 PM  

PsiChick: RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)

Yes, how can we  think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.


We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.
 
2013-09-04 07:13:59 PM  

cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.


Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.
 
2013-09-04 07:28:05 PM  

mmmk: Power corrupts.


In this case, access to more information gives a more complex view.

The fact that people here seem to think the only two options are "do nothing" (never mind that that has just as many consequences as doing something), or "full out ground war". Who you target, how you target, how you strike, when you strike- it's all lost. People generally seem to lack the theoretical grounding to understand any complexity in war, so they draw comparisons to the only things they know enough about to draw comparisons to, regardless of whether the facts come even remotely close to fitting or not. If the only models you have for understanding military action are Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you're going to try and pick the closest scenario out of the scenarios that you know.

As people get into power and learn more about the issues they're suddenly forced to grapple with, their positions change. the naive or completely misplaced opinions they used to have when they didn't know what they were talking about get supplanted by more reasoned positions based on a better understanding of the dynamics at play. From the outside, to people who are still working from limited knowledge, that process looks like selling out. Ascribe a negative motive, and it becomes corruption.

That's not to say that corruption doesn't exist. But when I listen to or read the stuff John Kerry is saying, and when I read the crap on fark- the difference in how well the arguments fit the available facts is pretty striking. Kerry pretty clearly knows what the fark he's talking about.

That's not to say there aren't reasoned arguments that can't be made in the other direction. The factional power battles should Assad be weakened or removed could be a bloodbath. The control of the chemical weapons stockpiles could be at risk. If we blow up those stockpiles, intentionally or not, it could unleash a chemical horror on anybody downwind and contaminate water tables, food supplies, and so on. There are a lot of pitfalls and dangers, and you can make a very good case, given the existing facts, that this is a very bad idea.

But I don't see that case being made. I see, "If we do anything at all, that automatically means we'll later be invading like we did in Vietnam and Iraq!". That's not a credible argument. It ignores the facts on the ground, it ignores the political dynamics, it's simply ignorant. It marks you as somebody who's not credible, who's not serious, and as somebody who should be ignored.
 
2013-09-04 07:28:47 PM  

Kit Fister: cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.

Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.


It's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.
 
2013-09-04 07:31:03 PM  

cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.


Keep drinking that Kool-Ade. When you find out what the people behind the scenes have been saying and are planning for and look at what the eventual outcome that Obama himself has said what he wants to see happen (the ouster of Assad) then there's no way that anyone can say that there will be no boots on the ground before this whole mess is over with.

Without lying to you that is.
 
2013-09-04 07:33:20 PM  

gregario: as long as the first to go are the hawks.


Yea, Obama.
 
2013-09-04 07:33:32 PM  

vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.


Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.
 
2013-09-04 07:35:24 PM  

Kit Fister: cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.

Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.


And it's cute how I believe the President about his birth certificate, right? And no way did those towers come down on their own. And it obviously took three shooters and a coordinated plot by the Lizard People to kill JFK.

Sometimes, complicated situations require us to look at facts and complicated and nuanced arguments rather than just making assumptions that fit easily with our view of the world. God gave you a farking brain. Use it. Judge each situation based on the facts.
 
2013-09-04 07:37:56 PM  

Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.


So France, with one of the largest militaries and defense industries in the world, doesn't count?

Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about. It's complicated, and nobody would blame you.
 
2013-09-04 07:39:05 PM  

cptjeff: That's not to say there aren't reasoned arguments that can't be made in the other direction. The factional power battles should Assad be weakened or removed could be a bloodbath. The control of the chemical weapons stockpiles could be at risk. If we blow up those stockpiles, intentionally or not, it could unleash a chemical horror on anybody downwind and contaminate water tables, food supplies, and so on. There are a lot of pitfalls and dangers, and you can make a very good case, given the existing facts, that this is a very bad idea.

But I don't see that case being made.


Bullshiat. People have been making informed cases since this shiat started.
 
2013-09-04 07:41:21 PM  

cptjeff: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

So France, with one of the largest militaries and defense industries in the world, doesn't count?

Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about. It's complicated, and nobody would blame you.


France doesn't want to go in. They want somebody to go in.
 
2013-09-04 07:42:52 PM  

Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.


No kidding, the limey Parliament took one look at this shiat and said 'no fargin' way ya bleeding tossers!'
 
2013-09-04 07:44:13 PM  
if they hurry, they can get there in time to celebrate 9/11 with their Al Nusra buddies, and raise a glass to their mutual friends Osama Bin Ladin and the Mullah Omar.

Seriously, the fact that naive, ill-informed peons who joined the services to attack Al Quaeda might be fighting alongside their affiliates in Syria is just farkin full retard.

Technically, the entire armed services, from private all the way to the top, will be in breach of the Patriot Act.

Old and busted: War on Terror.

New hotness: War with Terror.
 
2013-09-04 07:50:58 PM  
Shouldn't be a problem. The US is always years late in fighting world wars, ya know, the important ones.
 
2013-09-04 07:56:50 PM  

The Repeated Meme: if they hurry, they can get there in time to celebrate 9/11 with their Al Nusra buddies, and raise a glass to their mutual friends Osama Bin Ladin and the Mullah Omar.

Seriously, the fact that naive, ill-informed peons who joined the services to attack Al Quaeda might be fighting alongside their affiliates in Syria is just farkin full retard.

Technically, the entire armed services, from private all the way to the top, will be in breach of the Patriot Act.

Old and busted: War on Terror.

New hotness: War with Terror.


there is no room for politics in war. raytheon stocks are up, man. war is good business. shut up.
 
2013-09-04 07:57:22 PM  
It's Al-Qaeda we're siding with there... the same Al-Qaeda we've invested billions of dollars in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan... The same Al-Qaeda we sided with in Afghanistan against Russia two decades ago. THE SAME EFFING Al-Qaeda THAT ATTACKED US ON 9/11 (well, them and Saudi Arabia) WHY ARE WE ON THEIR SIDE IN THIS?!?! And why are are elected representatives ignoring the 60% + of the American people who DO NOT want us involved?
 
2013-09-04 08:01:32 PM  

cptjeff: So France, with one of the largest militaries and defense industries in the world, doesn't count?

Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about. It's complicated, and nobody would blame you.


France has not committed itself to anything yet. Sure PM Ayrault wants to help but it is expected that his Parliament will vote no. Why don't you "Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about ".

2 days ago is what you are thinking, here's something from 5 hours ago. Read the last line.
 
2013-09-04 08:08:41 PM  

vygramul: Kit Fister: cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.

Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.

It's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.


No, I believe he wants it to be that simple. But I don't believe Assad is going to let it be that simple and I believe we may very well get sucked into something worse.
 
2013-09-04 08:11:05 PM  

AllUpInYa: A bunch of lawyers, writing something that isn't riddled with holes - say it ain't so!


It ain't so.  I already told you that up-thread.  The AUMF has a big hole.  Maybe the strike will lead to some hideous retaliation that draws the US into a bigger conflict, maybe not.  If it does the AUMF is not going to stop us from escalating.
 
2013-09-04 08:11:48 PM  

cptjeff: Kit Fister: cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.

Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.

And it's cute how I believe the President about his birth certificate, right? And no way did those towers come down on their own. And it obviously took three shooters and a coordinated plot by the Lizard People to kill JFK.

Sometimes, complicated situations require us to look at facts and complicated and nuanced arguments rather than just making assumptions that fit easily with our view of the world. God gave you a farking brain. Use it. Judge each situation based on the facts.


I am judging this situation based on the facts I have, and I don't think this war is a good idea. I fear another Iraq. I fear a world where we are always at war.

I also believe Obama about his BC, that the planes took out the twin towers, and Kennedy was obviously shot by Cubans, the CIA, teamsters, Russian spies, and the Illuminati. The Onion did a great writeup about it.
 
2013-09-04 08:12:21 PM  
Whatever happened to HELL NO WE WON'T GO?
 
2013-09-04 08:12:33 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.


Military advisers are special forces. That's SF's primary mission - train the indigenous population.
 
2013-09-04 08:38:40 PM  

Kit Fister: I am judging this situation based on the facts I have, and I don't think this war is a good idea. I fear another Iraq. I fear a world where we are always at war.


Wait, what?  I'm only 34, but for as long as I've been alive, we've been "at war". (as much as we've been since WWII)  Hell, even before I was born, we were "at war" for several decades.

Know what the difference is today?  The Internet.  We know about it.  We know about everything going on.  We don't necessarily have all the facts, or detailed insights, but we know when we're mobilized.  That's literally the only thing that's changed.  We've been firing rounds, deploying troops, burning missiles and rolling mechanized infantry constantly.  I grew up military, so every now and again I'd see entire units truck off for their rotation.  Some people didn't come home.  It was just the way things were.

We haven't had a formal declaration of War since WWII, but we sure as hell have been actively hostile every year since then.  They just haven't all been high-profile.
 
2013-09-04 08:40:07 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]

Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.


You didn't have to vote for the fascists.  There were plenty of other, third party choices available.
 
2013-09-04 08:48:24 PM  

Kit Fister: I am judging this situation based on the facts I have, and I don't think this war is a good idea. I fear another Iraq. I fear a world where we are always at war.


I'm saying your fear of another Iraq is completely misguided. Bush and co wanted a massive invasion, with ground forces, lots of shiny tanks and whatnot, and a pretty loose and badly defined objective. It wasn't a secret.

Obama wants a very limited, narrowly tailored, and closely targeted approach to Syria with a specific, limited strategic objective: Weakening Assad, but not enough to remove him, while sending a strong message to the rest of the world that international prohibitions on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons do mean something. He knows how he wants to achieve that objective, and it doesn't involve ground forces. The exact strategic details aren't public, but they were explained in depth to the Senate Foreign Relations committee this afternoon, and on a bipartisan vote, they found it to be a reasonable approach, though some (McCain) didn't think it was strong enough.

It's good to fear another Iraq. Iraq was bad. But the facts in Syria are absolutely nothing like those in Iraq, and the political dynamic, both from the administration and from Congress, is similarly absolutely nothing like that in the leadup to Iraq.


Radioactive Ass: cptjeff: So France, with one of the largest militaries and defense industries in the world, doesn't count?

Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about. It's complicated, and nobody would blame you.

France has not committed itself to anything yet. Sure PM Ayrault wants to help but it is expected that his Parliament will vote no. Why don't you "Just admit that you have no farking idea what you're talking about ".

2 days ago is what you are thinking, here's something from 5 hours ago. Read the last line.


Hollande (who has far more power than the PM- the French PM is a nobody) supports action, and doesn't need Parliamentary approval to take it- the French Presidency is incredibly powerful. Thank Charles De Gaulle. He has signaled that he's waiting on the US's decision though- he's going to be more bound to the squabbling of our Congress than his Parliament. And the last line of your article say that the National Assembly isn't expected to actually vote- which leaves the choice solely in the hands of... Hollande, who's ready to start lobbing missiles as soon as the US says go.
 
2013-09-04 09:00:01 PM  
Just before Dumbya bullshiatted us into Iraq, I asked why. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was privy to some information which made it clear that there was a damned good reason to invade Iraq, and asked him to explain it. Give the American people a good reason to invade another country- a country which didn't really have the ability to attack us.

We never got a good reason. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead  US and "coalition" troops later, we've accomplished nothing useful. Saddam got sent to the big rape room in the sky, but that wasn't worth the life of anyone, let alone the boxcar-loads of bodies created by our invasion and subsequent occupation.

Now we're being told that it's a moral imperative to "punish" Syria for their use of chemical weapons. Let's try a thought experiment: replace Syria with Russia or China. Would we still feel the need to send our military to punish those who used chemical weapons if it was a different country doing it? If the answer is "no", then we shouldn't be doing so with Syria. There is no way this could end up being beneficial to the United States. The best case scenario is basically hoping that the people who eventually throw Assad out the window aren't too horrible.

So again I ask, "Mr. President, will you please explain the reason why we, the People, need to send our sons and daughters into harm's way and kill a bunch of people we don't know halfway around the world?"

We need to ask the same question of all our elected representatives. Now.
 
2013-09-04 09:09:40 PM  

cptjeff: Obama wants a very limited, narrowly tailored, and closely targeted approach to Syria with a specific, limited strategic objective: Weakening Assad, but not enough to remove him, while sending a strong message to the rest of the world that international prohibitions on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons do mean something. He knows how he wants to achieve that objective, and it doesn't involve ground forces.


What they would like to happen (right people die, message heard and heeded round the world) may not match the actual outcome.  It is also not far-fetched to suppose that they welcome some fresh conflict to rally people behind the President, remind everyone that we need to be afraid, terribly afraid of the bad people in the world, and that living in a glass box is a small price to pay for the safety of the homeland.  It's for the children, really.
 
2013-09-04 09:13:52 PM  

Snarfangel: HotIgneous Intruder: If Obama bombs Assad's forces, won't he be guilty of giving aid and support to terrorists?

FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Also, Reagan.


Also, Carter.
 
2013-09-04 10:17:18 PM  
No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve: ask for
me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I
am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o'
both your houses!...
 
2013-09-04 10:28:59 PM  

Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.


France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.
 
2013-09-04 10:31:01 PM  

Kit Fister: vygramul: Kit Fister: cptjeff: We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.

Uh huh. And Iraq was going to take 20 days and we were going to be greeted as liberators. The NSA only collects metadata on foreign nationals, and the police are here to help you.

It's cute how you actually believe that this is just going to be a few missiles.

It's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

No, I believe he wants it to be that simple. But I don't believe Assad is going to let it be that simple and I believe we may very well get sucked into something worse.


Assad can't do anything to MAKE us do anything.
 
2013-09-04 10:39:42 PM  
You can put your boots on my ground any time, soldier, if you know what I mean.

And I think that you do. Come bomb me, baby.
 
2013-09-04 10:47:21 PM  
Wow, not very peaceful.

mycatbirdseat.com
 
2013-09-04 10:54:27 PM  

Wenchmaster: Just before Dumbya bullshiatted us into Iraq, I asked why. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was privy to some information which made it clear that there was a damned good reason to invade Iraq, and asked him to explain it. Give the American people a good reason to invade another country- a country which didn't really have the ability to attack us.

We never got a good reason. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead US and "coalition" troops later, we've accomplished nothing useful. Saddam got sent to the big rape room in the sky, but that wasn't worth the life of anyone, let alone the boxcar-loads of bodies created by our invasion and subsequent occupation.


I think the neo-con chickenhawks would say it was worth it.  The US told the world that they could remove any country's leader if the US chose to.
 
2013-09-04 10:58:45 PM  

RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)


Yeah, why should we demand Congressional approval to commit what amounts to an act of war? Especially with Iran threatening to retaliate.
 
2013-09-04 11:47:18 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Prophet of Loss: Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]

Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.

You didn't have to vote for the fascists.  There were plenty of other, third party choices available.


They were worse.
 
2013-09-05 12:19:18 AM  

soporific: Smeggy Smurf: Prophet of Loss: Chilito: [granitegrok.com image 599x400]

Bullshait. Most of us voted for Obama because of all the possible GOP candidates, they chose one that was worse than Obama by far.

You got nothin.

You didn't have to vote for the fascists.  There were plenty of other, third party choices available.

They were worse.


RON PAUL!
 
2013-09-05 12:27:35 AM  
 
2013-09-05 12:30:48 AM  
Always a whore, never a man ...

christopherfountain.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-05 12:47:24 AM  

Radioactive Ass: PsiChick: Yes, how can we think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.

Clearly you are a racist or something...

/what? That's been the standard retort for anyone who has opposed Obama in the past


Typically because there's been no logical reason to oppose Obama, and odd, isn't it, how the right wing is suddenly kowtowing to a group with the most racist protests this side of the KKK...

/Seriously. If it's based in fact, it's not an insult, it's a criticism. This is a pretty basic thing here.
 
2013-09-05 12:51:36 AM  

cptjeff: PsiChick: RealAmericanHero: Legally, Obama doesn't even have to ask Congress to put boots on the ground, let alone launch missiles at them. Putting it to a congressional vote is an extreme courtesy. I don't see what the fark you're all complaining about. You've gotten more than you should've expected and our representative democracy is at work (so Syria can know well in advance precisely when we're striking and they have plenty of time to prepare.)

Yes, how can we  think of complaining when Obama wants to start what's looking more and more like Afghanistan 2.0.

We're going to lob farking missiles. We're not going to go in with a full out ground war.


...Once again, I would like to note the age gap for those who started politics pre- or post-Bush era. For post-Bush era folks like me, we look at this and think you're utterly adorable, but maybe we should tighten your helmet so it doesn't fall off, and find your caretaker.

/I mean, I hope you're right, but day-um, I feel like I got cheated out of the ability to trust my elected officials here.
 
2013-09-05 01:28:46 AM  
Fake outrage is fake. We are going to just throw some missiles at them so they can have peace. It will be awesome.
 
2013-09-05 01:29:30 AM  

PsiChick: /Seriously. If it's based in fact, it's not an insult, it's a criticism. This is a pretty basic thing here.


I respect your opinion but no, it's playing the race card when no such claim has been made by the person that it's directed at, their only transgression was criticism of Obama. I've had it directed at me and I gave him money and voted for him in his first campaign. Some people get their -cisms mixed up.

I'm not saying nor implying that there aren't people out there whose main issue is that he's black. I'm saying that there is a problem with people assuming that because he's black that that is the sole reason for the criticism without examining why that criticism is there in the first place. A lot of the same political and personal complaints from the right today about Obama mirror some of the ones about Clinton (pecker jokes aside) in the 90's. That's ideological and not personal and is testable by simply reading news and opinion pieces from back then. Clinton's haircut comes to mind. "Regal president", "Uncaring of the middle class trapped in airplanes" and so on were some of the criticisms being flung around. Does that sound familiar in today's political environment? No racism then, no racism now. Ideological differences across the board and a dislike for the mans politics in general. the same went for Bush I might add.

Now you may disagree with these particular observations of mine but I hold that until someone can actually be proven to have a racial bias then they shouldn't be accused of it right out of the gate. When it is used as cover from having to actually defend their positions ideologically, who is the actual racist? I think that it's the person playing the race card as a method of deflecting a debate over ideological differences when they have no other way to defend their own choices that will appeal to someone outside of their ideology. If they could they would.
 
2013-09-05 01:30:43 AM  

muck4doo: Fake outrage is fake. We are going to just throw some missiles at them so they can have peace. It will be awesome.


So we will peace the everloving shiat out of them? Sounds legit...
 
2013-09-05 02:55:19 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.


Um...The Special Forces are "advisors".  That's their gig. It's what they do.
The first U.S. Special Forces operations in Vietnam were in 1957, when soldiers from the 1st Special Forces Group trained fifty eight Vietnamese Army soldiers at the Commando Training Center in Nha Trang.
 
2013-09-05 03:12:00 AM  

The Southern Dandy: shifty lookin bleeder: Guadior42: That's how we started in Vietnam.

Actually, Vietnam started with "advisors;" first to the French, then to the South Vietnamese.  The special forces entered many years later. And I can definitely see us sending "advisors" to aid the rebels.

Um...The Special Forces are "advisors".  That's their gig. It's what they do.
The first U.S. Special Forces operations in Vietnam were in 1957, when soldiers from the 1st Special Forces Group trained fifty eight Vietnamese Army soldiers at the Commando Training Center in Nha Trang.


Imagine how the US would react to foreign special forces "advisers" training Al Qeada in 2000.

Yeah, thats probably what the North Vietcong thought about it too.

Well.....at least we stopped the spread of communism and brought Democracy to the world.  And all for the measly price of nearly 60,000 of our soldiers.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:25 AM  

vygramul: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.


Play? Sounds like a game. You know the one, all the farkers in here are jerkin themselves to it. Just in case it turns into, 'boots on the ground' how about all you keyboard warriors go sign up. You can shine your boots and polish your bullets. Then, step into the line of fire. Go on, ya'll want it, you know you do.
 
2013-09-05 10:08:31 AM  

vudukungfu: Well, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Forgot basic war winning theory-a
Way down yonder in Syria
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I ain't got no fear of ya,
Next stop is Syria;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Come on Wall Street, don't be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of it's trade,
But just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Arab-cong.

 /Apologies to Country Joe Mac Donald.


I don't know how you ever expect to stop the war if you can't sing any better than that.
 
2013-09-05 10:18:04 AM  

wasteofspace: vygramul: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.

Play? Sounds like a game. You know the one, all the farkers in here are jerkin themselves to it. Just in case it turns into, 'boots on the ground' how about all you keyboard warriors go sign up. You can shine your boots and polish your bullets. Then, step into the line of fire. Go on, ya'll want it, you know you do.


Only if I get to fly a fighter jet, but sure: let's go!

/actually, no.
//non-interventionist
///would still like to fly an F-16.
 
2013-09-05 10:38:05 AM  
Call your reps.
They had people answering the phones at mine because so many people were calling to oppose attacking Syria.
Maybe I'm delusional but if it were MY job and I was getting hundreds of calls a day telling me this vote was pivotal in my re-election I would at least consider it.

Mark Begich DEM AK (202) 224-3004
Lisa Murkowski REP AK (202) 224-6665
Jeff Sessions REP AL (202) 224-4124
Richard Shelby REP AL (202) 224-5744
Mark Pryor DEM AR (202) 224-2353
John Boozman REP AR (202) 224-4843
Jeff Flake REP AZ (202) 224-4521
John McCain REP AZ (202) 224-2235
Dianne Feinstein DEM CA (202) 224-3841
Barbara Boxer DEM CA (202) 224-3553
Mark Udall DEM CO (202) 224-5941
Michael Bennet DEM CO (202) 224-5852
Christopher Murphy DEM CT (202) 224-4041
Richard Blumenthal DEM CT (202) 224-2823
Thomas Carper DEM DE (202) 224-2441
Chris Coons DEM DE (202) 224-5042
Bill Nelson DEM FL (202) 224-5274
Marco Rubio REP FL (202) 224-3041
Saxby Chambliss REP GA (202) 224-3521
Johnny Isakson REP GA (202) 224-3643
Mazie Hirono DEM HI (202) 224-6361
Brian Schatz DEM HI (202) 224-3934
Tom Harkin DEM IA (202) 224-3254
Charles Grassley REP IA (202) 224-3744
Jim Risch REP ID (202) 224-2752
Michael Crapo REP ID (202) 224-6142
Richard Durbin DEM IL (202) 224-2152
Mark Kirk REP IL (202) 224-2854
Joe Donnelly DEM IN (202) 224-4814
Dan Coats REP IN (202) 224-5623
Pat Roberts REP KS (202) 224-4774
Jerry Moran REP KS (202) 224-6521
Mitch McConnell REP KY (202) 224-2541
Rand Paul REP KY (202) 224-4343
Mary Landrieu DEM LA (202) 224-5824
David Vitter REP LA (202) 224-4623
Elizabeth Warren DEM MA (202) 224-4543
Edward Markey DEM MA (202) 224-2742
Benjamin Cardin DEM MD (202) 224-4524
Barbara Mikulski DEM MD (202) 224-4654
Angus King IND ME (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins REP ME (202) 224-2523
Debbie Stabenow DEM MI (202) 224-4822
Carl Levin DEM MI (202) 224-6221
Amy Klobuchar DEM MN (202) 224-3244
Al Franken DEM MN (202) 224-5641
Claire McCaskill DEM MO (202) 224-6154
Roy Blunt REP MO (202) 224-5721
Roger Wicker REP MS (202) 224-6253
Thad Cochran REP MS (202) 224-5054
Jon Tester DEM MT (202) 224-2644
Max Baucus DEM MT (202) 224-2651
Kay Hagan DEM NC (202) 224-6342
Richard Burr REP NC (202) 224-3154
Heidi Heitkamp DEM ND (202) 224-2043
John Hoeven REP ND (202) 224-2551
Deb Fischer REP NE (202) 224-6551
Mike Johanns REP NE (202) 224-4224
Jeanne Shaheen DEM NH (202) 224-2841
Kelly Ayotte REP NH (202) 224-3324
Robert Menendez DEM NJ (202) 224-4744
Jeff Chiesa REP NJ (202) 224-3224
Martin Heinrich DEM NM (202) 224-5521
Tom Udall DEM NM (202) 224-6621
Dean Heller REP NV (202) 224-6244
Harry Reid DEM NV (202) 224-3542
Kirsten Gillibrand DEM NY (202) 224-4451
Charles Schumer DEM NY (202) 224-6542
Sherrod Brown DEM OH (202) 224-2315
Rob Portman REP OH (202) 224-3353
James Inhofe REP OK (202) 224-4721
Tom Coburn REP OK (202) 224-5754
Jeff Merkley DEM OR (202) 224-3753
Ron Wyden DEM OR (202) 224-5244
Bob Casey DEM PA (202) 224-6324
Patrick Toomey REP PA (202) 224-4254
Sheldon Whitehouse DEM RI (202) 224-2921
Jack Reed DEM RI (202) 224-4642
Lindsey Graham REP SC (202) 224-5972
Tim Scott REP SC (202) 224-6121
Tim Johnson DEM SD (202) 224-5842
John Thune REP SD (202) 224-2321
Bob Corker REP TN (202) 224-3344
Lamar Alexander REP TN (202) 224-4944
Ted Cruz REP TX (202) 224-5922
John Cornyn REP TX (202) 224-2934
Orrin Hatch REP UT (202) 224-5251
Mike Lee REP UT (202) 224-5444
Tim Kaine DEM VA (202) 224-4024
Mark Warner DEM VA (202) 224-2023
Bernard Sanders IND VT (202) 224-5141
Patrick Leahy DEM VT (202) 224-4242
Maria Cantwell DEM WA (202) 224-3441
Patty Murray DEM WA (202) 224-2621
Tammy Baldwin DEM WI (202) 224-5653
Ron Johnson REP WI (202) 224-5323
Joe Manchin DEM WV (202) 224-3954
Jay Rockefeller DEM WV (202) 224-6472
John Barrasso REP WY (202) 224-6441
Michael Enzi REP WY (202) 224-3424
 
2013-09-05 10:41:13 AM  

wasteofspace: vygramul: Radioactive Ass: vygramul: t's cute how Obama said that about Libya, and it turned out to be true, yet you think this time he's lying.

Syria is not Libya. Not even close. We have no other partners willing to go in because they know what a meat grinder that will be.

France said yes. And what meat-grinder? We're just going to lob a few missiles, maybe let the air wing play a little.

Of course, the same people leading up to Libya talked about how horrible it was going to be, only now, in retrospect, saying that OF COURSE Libya was a boring cake-walk.

Play? Sounds like a game. You know the one, all the farkers in here are jerkin themselves to it. Just in case it turns into, 'boots on the ground' how about all you keyboard warriors go sign up. You can shine your boots and polish your bullets. Then, step into the line of fire. Go on, ya'll want it, you know you do.


So: got nuthin', eh?
 
2013-09-05 01:00:46 PM  

Radioactive Ass: PsiChick: /Seriously. If it's based in fact, it's not an insult, it's a criticism. This is a pretty basic thing here.

I respect your opinion but no, it's playing the race card when no such claim has been made by the person that it's directed at, their only transgression was criticism of Obama. I've had it directed at me and I gave him money and voted for him in his first campaign. Some people get their -cisms mixed up.

I'm not saying nor implying that there aren't people out there whose main issue is that he's black. I'm saying that there is a problem with people assuming that because he's black that that is the sole reason for the criticism without examining why that criticism is there in the first place. A lot of the same political and personal complaints from the right today about Obama mirror some of the ones about Clinton (pecker jokes aside) in the 90's. That's ideological and not personal and is testable by simply reading news and opinion pieces from back then. Clinton's haircut comes to mind. "Regal president", "Uncaring of the middle class trapped in airplanes" and so on were some of the criticisms being flung around. Does that sound familiar in today's political environment? No racism then, no racism now. Ideological differences across the board and a dislike for the mans politics in general. the same went for Bush I might add.

Now you may disagree with these particular observations of mine but I hold that until someone can actually be proven to have a racial bias then they shouldn't be accused of it right out of the gate. When it is used as cover from having to actually defend their positions ideologically, who is the actual racist? I think that it's the person playing the race card as a method of deflecting a debate over ideological differences when they have no other way to defend their own choices that will appeal to someone outside of their ideology. If they could they would.


...Except that most of the GOP isn't criticizing him. They're just insulting him. Their attacks have no basis in reality (such as Pat Buchannan calling Obama 'untutored' in his article, or claiming he's a socalist, or this whole 'birther' movement). The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

Sure, maybe you personally were insulted by idiots. Doesn't mean the vast majority of the criticism isn't actual, legitimate criticism, not an insult.
 
2013-09-05 01:07:22 PM  

PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.


What would that be?
 
2013-09-05 01:18:48 PM  

Gunny Highway: PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

What would that be?


...Remember our conversation topic? Literally the only major difference he has from other Presidents, Democratic or Republican?

/Hint: His skin color.
//Because people are apparently still racist.
 
2013-09-05 03:40:27 PM  
We do get fooled again.
 
2013-09-05 05:15:11 PM  

Frederick: North Vietcong


Never mind.  You're rolling.
 
2013-09-05 05:36:01 PM  

PsiChick: Gunny Highway: PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

What would that be?

...Remember our conversation topic? Literally the only major difference he has from other Presidents, Democratic or Republican?

/Hint: His skin color.
//Because people are apparently still racist.


The use of "apparently" shows that your logic is circular.  This is the second time I've noticed you doing that.  You might want to curb it if you want to bear public influence through this forum.  Then again, that's not why I'm here, and I don't assume it's your goal, either.  :)
 
2013-09-05 05:36:39 PM  
Please excuse me. I meant reasoning, not logic.
 
2013-09-05 06:59:01 PM  

Wangiss: PsiChick: Gunny Highway: PsiChick: The vitrol pretty much has only one possible source.

What would that be?

...Remember our conversation topic? Literally the only major difference he has from other Presidents, Democratic or Republican?

/Hint: His skin color.
//Because people are apparently still racist.

The use of "apparently" shows that your logic is circular.  This is the second time I've noticed you doing that.  You might want to curb it if you want to bear public influence through this forum.  Then again, that's not why I'm here, and I don't assume it's your goal, either.  :)


'Apparently' was meant to indicate irritation with the world, like when you tell a problem child, 'apparently, you can't handle not getting arrested for smarting off to cops, so from now on you're driving with an adult present'. Not circular logic. :p
 
Displayed 287 of 287 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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