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.

(Guardian)   WWIII, which was on, then off, then on again, then off again, is now back on again. Maybe   (theguardian.com) divider line 68
    More: Unlikely, Vladimir Putin, Obama, G20 summit, missile shield, air defence, world leaders, Russian President, United States  
•       •       •

818 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Sep 2013 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-05 08:49:59 AM  
""Keep in mind, I'm somebody who opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm not interested in repeating mistakes about basing decisions on faulty intelligence," the US president said at a news conference in Stockholm. "

That's all well and good, Mr. President, and I do believe you - but if you could just, you know, share a little of that intelligence? That'd be great.
 
2013-09-05 09:02:28 AM  
Obama will stop at nothing to drag these United States of America into another illegal quagmire in the ME.

King Barack H.W. Bush III
 
2013-09-05 09:02:31 AM  
i1247.photobucket.com

What is war again?

/Has no opinion
 
2013-09-05 09:04:07 AM  
If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?
 
2013-09-05 09:04:28 AM  
WWIV will be even more awesomer!

www.lambiek.net
 
2013-09-05 09:05:12 AM  
No, it's not. Even if Russia and Iran decided to defend Syria, which the won't, Russia can't even pay its military much less prosecute a war against the US and the hundred other nations that are duty bound to declare war on Russia if they do attack. Iran would not even make it to the war as their entire military can be halted in a week of air strikes.
 
2013-09-05 09:06:08 AM  

Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?


^^^ THIS ^^^
 
2013-09-05 09:07:54 AM  
houraney.com
 
2013-09-05 09:08:33 AM  

Nemo's Brother: [houraney.com image 480x480]


Surely you jest
 
2013-09-05 09:09:12 AM  
This thread headed to DerpCon5.
 
2013-09-05 09:09:28 AM  

Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?


So you want to force people to be drafted against their will and at massive cost to taxpayers so a bunch of idiots can sit at a base and play cards for two weeks?
 
2013-09-05 09:10:26 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.


That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences
 
2013-09-05 09:10:30 AM  

Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?


Hot damn, thanks for volunteering son.

Personally I can't wait. All this trying to make peace bullshiat was getting boring. It's been to long since we as a country got together and said, " you know what? This world has too many brown people. Lets fix that."
 
2013-09-05 09:11:18 AM  

Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?


Hell, half the Internet Tough Guys I know are young enough to be drafted THEMSELVES.
 
2013-09-05 09:12:10 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?

So you want to force people to be drafted against their will and at massive cost to taxpayers so a bunch of idiots can sit at a base and play cards for two weeks?


Buy-in is a buck-o-five.

/freedom isn't free
 
2013-09-05 09:14:58 AM  

Outrageous Muff: No, it's not. Even if Russia and Iran decided to defend Syria, which the won't, Russia can't even pay its military much less prosecute a war against the US and the hundred other nations that are duty bound to declare war on Russia if they do attack. Iran would not even make it to the war as their entire military can be halted in a week of air strikes.


You know who else thought Russia would be easy to bully because they couldn't support their military? Hitler.

/Godwin
 
2013-09-05 09:24:28 AM  

redqueenmeg: Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?

Hell, half the Internet Tough Guys I know are young enough to be drafted THEMSELVES.


Oh, I see, that's basically what you said.  oops.  :D

Literacy, it's a valuable skill.  Need to remember that.
 
2013-09-05 09:25:05 AM  
Pooty poot calls Lerch a liar.

Wait until Astro-Hungary hears about THIS.
 
2013-09-05 09:25:05 AM  

monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences


They will never be the same.
 
2013-09-05 09:26:37 AM  

Serpentile6: Outrageous Muff: No, it's not. Even if Russia and Iran decided to defend Syria, which the won't, Russia can't even pay its military much less prosecute a war against the US and the hundred other nations that are duty bound to declare war on Russia if they do attack. Iran would not even make it to the war as their entire military can be halted in a week of air strikes.

You know who else thought Russia would be easy to bully because they couldn't support their military? Hitler.

/Godwin


Yeah, well, just don't play in eastern Europe.
 
2013-09-05 09:27:52 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Iran would not even make it to the war as their entire military can be halted in a week of air strikes.


Ah, the AIR POWER delusion is alive and well.
Because bombing always completely devastates every enemy in just days.
 
2013-09-05 09:37:22 AM  

vygramul: Serpentile6: Outrageous Muff: No, it's not. Even if Russia and Iran decided to defend Syria, which the won't, Russia can't even pay its military much less prosecute a war against the US and the hundred other nations that are duty bound to declare war on Russia if they do attack. Iran would not even make it to the war as their entire military can be halted in a week of air strikes.

You know who else thought Russia would be easy to bully because they couldn't support their military? Hitler.

/Godwin

Yeah, well, just don't play in eastern Europe.


Yeah I always attacked from Kamchatka
 
2013-09-05 09:41:22 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Ah, the AIR POWER delusion is alive and well.
Because bombing always completely devastates every enemy in just days.


Iran is surrounded by nations that would either be at war with them if they attacked the US or unaligned. So to get their troops to the enemy without opening themselves up to a Desert Storm Highway of Death type wipeout they would need their air force and/or navy. Both of those things can be easily take out with air strikes.
 
2013-09-05 09:50:30 AM  
FTFA:  [Putin] then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defense missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient".... The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran

Sounds like Russian missile defense systems will be getting a massive field test against American weapons in Syria before the big game in Iran.
 
2013-09-05 09:55:25 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?

So you want to force people to be drafted against their will and at massive cost to taxpayers so a bunch of idiots can sit at a base and play cards for two weeks?


Didn't John Kerry say that the Arab states (read: Saudi Arabia and Qatar) will pay the costs of war if we go into Syria.  They are basically hiring our military to fight wars for them.
 
2013-09-05 09:58:30 AM  

SlothB77: Didn't John Kerry say that the Arab states (read: Saudi Arabia and Qatar) will pay the costs of war if we go into Syria.  They are basically hiring our military to fight wars for them.


Yup. Just like Europe did in Libya and the world did during the Gulf War.
 
2013-09-05 10:02:08 AM  

imontheinternet: FTFA:  [Putin] then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defense missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient".... The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran

Sounds like Russian missile defense systems will be getting a massive field test against American weapons in Syria before the big game in Iran.


You know what happened the last time top-of-the-line Russian air defense equipment went up against American weapons?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-05 10:04:29 AM  

vygramul: imontheinternet: FTFA:  [Putin] then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defense missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient".... The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran

Sounds like Russian missile defense systems will be getting a massive field test against American weapons in Syria before the big game in Iran.

You know what happened the last time top-of-the-line Russian air defense equipment went up against American weapons?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 365x248]


www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com

'We have crushed the infidel air forces'.
 
2013-09-05 10:06:23 AM  

vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.


You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed
 
2013-09-05 10:17:41 AM  

machoprogrammer: vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.

You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed


No kidding. What does a "red line" in this context mean? Did he mean "line in the sand"?

This gaffe is on par with "fool me once, etc."

Obama has proved himself to be just as, if not more, dimwitted as Bush. But Bush was a guy who you'd like to get a beer with, Obama's the guy that calls you racist and then forces you to drink stupid democrat beer (probably swill lager like Sam Adams) with him.
 
2013-09-05 10:22:25 AM  

Outrageous Muff: SlothB77: Didn't John Kerry say that the Arab states (read: Saudi Arabia and Qatar) will pay the costs of war if we go into Syria.  They are basically hiring our military to fight wars for them.

Yup. Just like Europe did in Libya and the world did during the Gulf War.


did anyone pay us for those or did we do them pro bono?

Getting all expenses covered would be an upgrade.
 
2013-09-05 10:23:43 AM  

Aristocles: machoprogrammer: vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.

You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed

No kidding. What does a "red line" in this context mean? Did he mean "line in the sand"?

This gaffe is on par with "fool me once, etc."

Obama has proved himself to be just as, if not more, dimwitted as Bush. But Bush was a guy who you'd like to get a beer with, Obama's the guy that calls you racist and then forces you to drink stupid democrat beer (probably swill lager like Sam Adams) with him.



Ya know.....

The way I remember Obama's quote was something like...  "Chemical weapons are a red line, and it would change my thinking."

I don't remember him saying, "Chemical weapons are a red line, and I'll have to drop explosives on you."

Are dropping explosives the only thing he could think of?

/not saying I could have thought of anything better
//but I'm sure I could have
 
2013-09-05 10:26:40 AM  
Yall are acting like Russia's going to do something.  If you take 5 seconds to educate yourself as to what their laughable excuse for a military looks like these days, you'd realize we stand a better chance of being attacked by the Canadians.

Hell, the Canadians would have a better chance of winning.
 
2013-09-05 10:31:54 AM  

machoprogrammer: vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.

You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed


That's a click of the funny button for you.
 
2013-09-05 10:32:44 AM  

magores: Aristocles: machoprogrammer: vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.

You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed

No kidding. What does a "red line" in this context mean? Did he mean "line in the sand"?

This gaffe is on par with "fool me once, etc."

Obama has proved himself to be just as, if not more, dimwitted as Bush. But Bush was a guy who you'd like to get a beer with, Obama's the guy that calls you racist and then forces you to drink stupid democrat beer (probably swill lager like Sam Adams) with him.


Ya know.....

The way I remember Obama's quote was something like...  "Chemical weapons are a red line, and it would change my thinking."

I don't remember him saying, "Chemical weapons are a red line, and I'll have to drop explosives on you."

Are dropping explosives the only thing he could think of?

/not saying I could have thought of anything better
//but I'm sure I could have


Sure you could have: You could have said "Syria's using chemical weapons would be crossing a line in the sand." A "red line" refers to revving your engine's rpms too high.
 
2013-09-05 10:32:54 AM  

Infernalist: Yall are acting like Russia's going to do something.  If you take 5 seconds to educate yourself as to what their laughable excuse for a military looks like these days, you'd realize we stand a better chance of being attacked by the Canadians.

Hell, the Canadians would have a better chance of winning.


And, really, way better reasons for doing it.
 
2013-09-05 10:34:32 AM  

vygramul: Infernalist: Yall are acting like Russia's going to do something.  If you take 5 seconds to educate yourself as to what their laughable excuse for a military looks like these days, you'd realize we stand a better chance of being attacked by the Canadians.

Hell, the Canadians would have a better chance of winning.

And, really, way better reasons for doing it.


That stung a bit, but you're undoubtedly right.
 
2013-09-05 10:48:58 AM  
img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-05 10:51:13 AM  

Aristocles: magores: Aristocles: machoprogrammer: vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.

You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed

No kidding. What does a "red line" in this context mean? Did he mean "line in the sand"?

This gaffe is on par with "fool me once, etc."

Obama has proved himself to be just as, if not more, dimwitted as Bush. But Bush was a guy who you'd like to get a beer with, Obama's the guy that calls you racist and then forces you to drink stupid democrat beer (probably swill lager like Sam Adams) with him.


Ya know.....

The way I remember Obama's quote was something like...  "Chemical weapons are a red line, and it would change my thinking."

I don't remember him saying, "Chemical weapons are a red line, and I'll have to drop explosives on you."

Are dropping explosives the only thing he could think of?

/not saying I could have thought of anything better
//but I'm sure I could have

Sure you could have: You could have said "Syria's using chemical weapons would be crossing a line in the sand." A "red line" refers to revving your engine's rpms too high.


Okay.  So they revved too much.

I'm just saying that crossing the red line could have meant that we would impose an embargo, or jam all radio waves, or fart in their general direction.  Why does it mean we have to bomb them?
 
2013-09-05 10:54:12 AM  

vygramul: imontheinternet: FTFA:  [Putin] then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defense missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient".... The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran

Sounds like Russian missile defense systems will be getting a massive field test against American weapons in Syria before the big game in Iran.

You know what happened the last time top-of-the-line Russian air defense equipment went up against American weapons?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 365x248]


The funny thing about technology is that when you get to test it, it can be improved.  It's not a question of winning or losing.  Of course, America is going to win the war part of wars (the occupation part is a bit trickier).  It's a question of how many bombs are used and how many people are killed.
 
2013-09-05 11:04:24 AM  

monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences


I myself have a series of red lines, of increasing thicknesses. I'm currently preparing a series of empty threats, vacillating positions, and conflicting statements in case the lines don't work.
 
2013-09-05 11:06:02 AM  

jjorsett: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

I myself have a series of red lines, of increasing thicknesses. I'm currently preparing a series of empty threats, vacillating positions, and conflicting statements in case the lines don't work.


Well, there's a difference between you and the President.  He's actually has the power and authority to do something, whereas you're a powerless little thing.

You can see how the two are completely different now, I hope.
 
2013-09-05 11:07:53 AM  

imontheinternet: vygramul: imontheinternet: FTFA:  [Putin] then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defense missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient".... The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran

Sounds like Russian missile defense systems will be getting a massive field test against American weapons in Syria before the big game in Iran.

You know what happened the last time top-of-the-line Russian air defense equipment went up against American weapons?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 365x248]

The funny thing about technology is that when you get to test it, it can be improved.  It's not a question of winning or losing.  Of course, America is going to win the war part of wars (the occupation part is a bit trickier).  It's a question of how many bombs are used and how many people are killed.


True. Although they didn't seem to improve between 1991 and 2003, despite the rigorous testing.

I'm not saying it'll be a priori trivial. But an awful lot of people are predicting a tremendous amount of difficulty and all sorts of interventions that are not supported by the empirical evidence.
 
2013-09-05 11:10:36 AM  

vygramul: imontheinternet: vygramul: imontheinternet: FTFA:  [Putin] then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defense missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient".... The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran

Sounds like Russian missile defense systems will be getting a massive field test against American weapons in Syria before the big game in Iran.

You know what happened the last time top-of-the-line Russian air defense equipment went up against American weapons?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 365x248]

The funny thing about technology is that when you get to test it, it can be improved.  It's not a question of winning or losing.  Of course, America is going to win the war part of wars (the occupation part is a bit trickier).  It's a question of how many bombs are used and how many people are killed.

True. Although they didn't seem to improve between 1991 and 2003, despite the rigorous testing.

I'm not saying it'll be a priori trivial. But an awful lot of people are predicting a tremendous amount of difficulty and all sorts of interventions that are not supported by the empirical evidence.


Well, that's mostly because they're seizing upon any and every possible reason to cast doubt and reservation upon the actual success of the imminent air strikes.  'omg hamas'  'omg russia'  'omfg aq' 'escalation!'  'unknowns!'  'cost!'

And what's funny is that when none of this actually pans out as an actual concern and the air strikes happen and the world doesn't end, 99% of these alts will never be seen again.
 
2013-09-05 11:11:10 AM  

Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?


We aren't invading Syria.  We are just bombing them.  There will be probably be zero US troops on the ground (possibily a few special forces or CIA types, but no more than a couple hundred at most, and quite likely zero).  Think Kosovo or Libya, not Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
2013-09-05 11:12:25 AM  

Geotpf: Karma Chameleon: If we are going through with this, can we at least institute a semi draft and force all of the armchair cowboys, internet tough guys and Congress's children to go fight it?

We aren't invading Syria.  We are just bombing them.  There will be probably be zero US troops on the ground (possibily a few special forces or CIA types, but no more than a couple hundred at most, and quite likely zero).  Think Kosovo or Libya, not Iraq or Afghanistan.


Don't ever expect any of them to respond to these sorts of rational explanations.  They're not actually here to foster a conversation and discussion.
 
2013-09-05 11:18:03 AM  

Serpentile6: Outrageous Muff: No, it's not. Even if Russia and Iran decided to defend Syria, which the won't, Russia can't even pay its military much less prosecute a war against the US and the hundred other nations that are duty bound to declare war on Russia if they do attack. Iran would not even make it to the war as their entire military can be halted in a week of air strikes.

You know who else thought Russia would be easy to bully because they couldn't support their military? Hitler.

/Godwin


I was going to say that they can pay the people who have the machine guns in the back...you know...in case their men retreat?
 
2013-09-05 11:21:10 AM  

Geotpf: There will be probably be zero US troops on the ground (possibily a few special forces or CIA types, but no more than a couple hundred at most, and quite likely zero).


Additionally, if these guys are on the ground in Syria, they've probably been there for some time.
 
2013-09-05 11:27:14 AM  

magores: Aristocles: magores: Aristocles: machoprogrammer: vygramul: monoski: Lt. Cheese Weasel: This thread headed to DerpCon5.

That is why I am drawing a red line on my desk that cannot be crossed or there will be consequences

They will never be the same.

You might say that by drawing a red line, Obama dun goofed

No kidding. What does a "red line" in this context mean? Did he mean "line in the sand"?

This gaffe is on par with "fool me once, etc."

Obama has proved himself to be just as, if not more, dimwitted as Bush. But Bush was a guy who you'd like to get a beer with, Obama's the guy that calls you racist and then forces you to drink stupid democrat beer (probably swill lager like Sam Adams) with him.


Ya know.....

The way I remember Obama's quote was something like...  "Chemical weapons are a red line, and it would change my thinking."

I don't remember him saying, "Chemical weapons are a red line, and I'll have to drop explosives on you."

Are dropping explosives the only thing he could think of?

/not saying I could have thought of anything better
//but I'm sure I could have

Sure you could have: You could have said "Syria's using chemical weapons would be crossing a line in the sand." A "red line" refers to revving your engine's rpms too high.

Okay.  So they revved too much.

I'm just saying that crossing the red line could have meant that we would impose an embargo, or jam all radio waves, or fart in their general direction.  Why does it mean we have to bomb them?


Because Obama's credibility is on the line.
 
2013-09-05 11:35:46 AM  
The press really loves the idea of war. They all have romantic ideas about being war correspondents; that's why they pushed so hard for the Iraq war. We are not on the brink of another extended war with anyone, but the press just loves to write about it.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report