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
    More: Asinine, President Obama, boots on the ground, Senate, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Syrians, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen, Senate resolution, Gulf of Tonkin  
•       •       •

9793 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2013 at 4:14 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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!
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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