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  
•       •       •

9771 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 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.
 
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 »






Report