Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

9779 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report