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 79
    More: Asinine, President Obama, boots on the ground, Senate, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Syrians, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen, Senate resolution, Gulf of Tonkin  
•       •       •

9770 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2013 at 4:14 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-04 04:16:00 PM
9 votes:
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 05:14:54 PM
5 votes:
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 04:33:48 PM
5 votes:
 This was decided over 20 years ago.    Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Next is Yemen and then Iran completes the mission.
2013-09-04 04:30:21 PM
5 votes:
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 04:30:01 PM
4 votes:
Looks like Al Qaeda now has the most advanced navy in the world

static.ddmcdn.com
2013-09-04 04:18:43 PM
4 votes:
as long as the first to go are the hawks.
2013-09-04 04:17:10 PM
4 votes:
How entirely predictable.
2013-09-04 04:34:59 PM
3 votes:
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 04:19:57 PM
3 votes:

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


Yes.
2013-09-05 10:38:05 AM
2 votes:
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
2013-09-04 07:13:59 PM
2 votes:

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 06:03:36 PM
2 votes:
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 05:45:25 PM
2 votes:

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 05:14:40 PM
2 votes:

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 05:05:30 PM
2 votes:

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 05:04:17 PM
2 votes:

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 05:00:49 PM
2 votes:

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 04:55:23 PM
2 votes:

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 04:53:20 PM
2 votes:

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 04:52:24 PM
2 votes:
granitegrok.com
2013-09-04 04:49:24 PM
2 votes:

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

0-media-cdn.foolz.us

2013-09-04 04:46:43 PM
2 votes:
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 04:35:40 PM
2 votes:
It is a very bad idea.  Let another country do this.
2013-09-04 04:33:19 PM
2 votes:
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 04:30:59 PM
2 votes:
I guess Obama will be returning that Nobel Peace Prize since he's not using it anymore.
2013-09-04 04:24:47 PM
2 votes:

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 04:23:18 PM
2 votes:
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 04:22:55 PM
2 votes:
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 04:18:15 PM
2 votes:
"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 09:00:01 PM
1 votes:
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 07:44:13 PM
1 votes:
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 07:41:21 PM
1 votes:

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 07:33:32 PM
1 votes:

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 07:28:05 PM
1 votes:

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 06:57:05 PM
1 votes:
upl.co
2013-09-04 06:48:04 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:12 PM
1 votes:
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 06:37:22 PM
1 votes:
If Obama bombs Assad's forces, won't he be guilty of giving aid and support to terrorists?
2013-09-04 06:32:29 PM
1 votes:
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 06:15:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:04:12 PM
1 votes:
www.citybirds.com

Boots on the Ground
2013-09-04 05:51:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:50:04 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:45:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:29:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:10:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:08:20 PM
1 votes:
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 05:05:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:11 PM
1 votes:
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 05:00:48 PM
1 votes:
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 04:59:36 PM
1 votes:
www.breitbart.com
2013-09-04 04:53:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:53:15 PM
1 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-09-04 04:46:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:34 PM
1 votes:
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 04:41:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:54 PM
1 votes:
Raytheon will just start producing a new bomb called Boot.
2013-09-04 04:37:46 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:37 PM
1 votes:
The Decider approves of this resolution.

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-09-04 04:36:29 PM
1 votes:
www.fiftiesweb.com
Isn't there someone we can call to get this whole thing quietly taken care of?
2013-09-04 04:35:58 PM
1 votes:
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 04:30:03 PM
1 votes:
hope and change
2013-09-04 04:29:41 PM
1 votes:
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
2013-09-04 04:29:25 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT.  Unless you're...
2013-09-04 04:27:27 PM
1 votes:
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 04:25:15 PM
1 votes:
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 04:24:42 PM
1 votes:
It's the opposite of true, which is the worst kind of true.
2013-09-04 04:23:58 PM
1 votes:
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 04:23:55 PM
1 votes:
So it mandates boots on the ground. It doesn't say they have to have feet in them.
2013-09-04 04:22:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:20:51 PM
1 votes:
This ain't Iraq... Syria actually has soldiers, and some pretty big behind-the-scenes supporters...
2013-09-04 04:17:39 PM
1 votes:
Looking like a fool with your boots on the ground.
2013-09-04 04:17:27 PM
1 votes:
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"
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report