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.

(Scribd)   Read the revised Senate Syria Resolution, because if you still need NyQuil and Ex-Lax, this is cheaper than a doctor   (scribd.com) divider line 86
    More: Followup, Geneva Conventions, joint resolutions, public laws, laws of war, U.N. Security Council, biological weapons, Arab League, Bashar al-Assad  
•       •       •

2172 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2013 at 8:25 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-05 08:28:51 AM
You have a doctor prescribe you Ny-Quil and Ex-Lax?
 
2013-09-05 08:31:20 AM

Crewmannumber6: You have a doctor prescribe you Ny-Quil and Ex-Lax?


no, but if you need those things, a doctor's visit may be in the cards
 
2013-09-05 08:31:42 AM
I'd read it, but I'm in the middle of a killer poker match right now. I could lose thousands of dollars if I stop now.
 
2013-09-05 08:34:29 AM

somedude210: Crewmannumber6: You have a doctor prescribe you Ny-Quil and Ex-Lax?

no, but if you need those things, a doctor's visit may be in the cards


I would think you would take them consecutively and not concurrently. But hey maybe some people like shiatting the bed.
 
2013-09-05 08:34:45 AM
I was watching the retarded hearings on C-Span and Kerry kept saying over and over that only Assad used chemical weapons and no one else, ONLY ONLY ONLY

I can't wait for them to launch an attack and right after information is released the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-05 08:36:34 AM

DubyaHater: I'd read it, but I'm in the middle of a killer poker match right now. I could lose thousands of dollars if I stop now.


Hi McCain, your handle now makes more sense
 
2013-09-05 08:38:13 AM
I just hope lots of people die and stuff gets blown up. We have to think about what's best for the defense contractors. They have to make ends meet somehow. Why don't they have a right to food on the table? A place to live? They have a constitutional right to freedom, liberty, and the American dream.
 
2013-09-05 08:41:33 AM
js34603:   But hey maybe some people like shiatting the bed.

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-05 08:43:46 AM
They won't be happy in the Senate until they start WW3. They're laying it on thick with the "whereases". The idea that the United States can sit in moral judgement of anyone for violating international law is laughable. If the US wants to punish violations of international law, it should start with itself.
 
2013-09-05 08:46:31 AM
I do not understand the choice to not share at least SOME of this evidence publicly. You sound super sure - give us a taste of why.
 
2013-09-05 08:51:08 AM

Granny_Panties: I just hope lots of people die and stuff gets blown up. We have to think about what's best for the defense contractors. They have to make ends meet somehow. Why don't they have a right to food on the table? A place to live? They have a constitutional right to freedom, liberty, and the American dream.


People are getting blown up already in Syria. The question is whether us attacking will ultimately result in less people getting blown up (Kosovo, Libya) or more people (Iraq).
 
2013-09-05 08:54:11 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Granny_Panties: I just hope lots of people die and stuff gets blown up. We have to think about what's best for the defense contractors. They have to make ends meet somehow. Why don't they have a right to food on the table? A place to live? They have a constitutional right to freedom, liberty, and the American dream.

People are getting blown up already in Syria. The question is whether us attacking will ultimately result in less people getting blown up (Kosovo, Libya) or more people (Iraq).


What does that have to do with making money? That is what's important here.
 
2013-09-05 08:55:40 AM

Granny_Panties: What does that have to do with making money? That is what's important here.


Stocks for the companies involved with building and designing Tomahawks missiles are up
 
2013-09-05 08:58:05 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Granny_Panties: What does that have to do with making money? That is what's important here.

Stocks for the companies involved with building and designing Tomahawks missiles are up


SCORE!!!

God Bless America
 
2013-09-05 09:01:51 AM

js34603: somedude210: Crewmannumber6: You have a doctor prescribe you Ny-Quil and Ex-Lax?

no, but if you need those things, a doctor's visit may be in the cards

I would think you would take them consecutively and not concurrently. But hey maybe some people like shiatting the bed.


Reminds me of the time I popped 4 Ambien 2 Viagra and 2 Laxatives in the same nite.
 
2013-09-05 09:10:50 AM
It's a blank check to use force to "deter" and "respond to" attacks.  Degrading the government's capacity to use chemical weapons is only one of four goals.  One of the stated policies under Sec. 5 is to change the tide of the war against the government forces in order to get to a negotiated settlement that "leads to a democratic government in Syria"  The language is clear.  It's regime change.
 
2013-09-05 09:11:08 AM
More war based on more lies.
Putin calls Kerry a liar.
Obama is a stooge just like Bush I and Bush II were.
 
2013-09-05 09:12:30 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: More war based on more lies.
Putin calls Kerry a liar.
Obama is a stooge just like Bush I and Bush II were.


"I will take Vladimir Putin of Russia at his word if it confirms my bias against the current administration."
 
2013-09-05 09:14:48 AM

Granny_Panties: IdBeCrazyIf: Granny_Panties: What does that have to do with making money? That is what's important here.

Stocks for the companies involved with building and designing Tomahawks missiles are up

SCORE!!!

God Bless America


Don't forget 3 to 6 months oil futures and then short them on the 12 month as people realize a limited strike isn't going to blow up the region and the oil will still flow. Ohh and go long on natural gas since a new export port is going to be created from a converted import port in Pennsylvania and Japan fires up several new LNG electrical plants.

....man if more people just realized how farked the little guy is we'd be busting out the guillotines.
 
2013-09-05 09:16:50 AM
I just heard Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine on NPR saying that since the 1920s American troops have not had to worry about chemical attacks because of international conventions. He has either a bad memory or he's lying to support Obama, since I vividly remember American troops rolling into Iraq in MOPP Level 4 gear, masks and all that.

Lies, lies, lies.
The neocons won't stop until we're all dead.
 
2013-09-05 09:19:22 AM

LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: More war based on more lies.
Putin calls Kerry a liar.
Obama is a stooge just like Bush I and Bush II were.

"I will take Vladimir Putin of Russia at his word if it confirms my bias against the current administration."


I voted for the idiot Obama.
The evidence is clear that Obama just needs a bombing to measure his ball sack against Putin's.
Google "Syria pipeline"
and also Google "syria rebels Chechens"
and also Google " Putin Chechens"
Put the pieces together in your head.

Study it out.
 
2013-09-05 09:22:16 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: More war based on more lies.
Putin calls Kerry a liar.
Obama is a stooge just like Bush I and Bush II were.

"I will take Vladimir Putin of Russia at his word if it confirms my bias against the current administration."

I voted for the idiot Obama.
The evidence is clear that Obama just needs a bombing to measure his ball sack against Putin's.
Google "Syria pipeline"
and also Google "syria rebels Chechens"
and also Google " Putin Chechens"
Put the pieces together in your head.

Study it out.


I know you mean this ironically, but you did just pick and choose your favorite theories to make up a motivation. Neat.
 
2013-09-05 09:30:45 AM

imontheinternet: It's a blank check to use force to "deter" and "respond to" attacks.  Degrading the government's capacity to use chemical weapons is only one of four goals.  One of the stated policies under Sec. 5 is to change the tide of the war against the government forces in order to get to a negotiated settlement that "leads to a democratic government in Syria"  The language is clear.  It's regime change.


You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.
 
2013-09-05 09:34:13 AM
Reading the Senate Syria Resolution will lower my fever, put me to sleep, and make me poop? Interesting... I better get reading!
 
2013-09-05 09:42:32 AM
vygramul:
You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.

There's no "may" about it. He does not need a congressional vote to authorize a strike against Syria.
 
2013-09-05 09:45:07 AM

patrick767: There's no "may" about it. He does not need a congressional vote to authorize a strike against Syria.


Under which authorization of force? Or you think it would be justified under the imminent threat rule?
 
2013-09-05 09:48:36 AM

Granny_Panties: I just hope lots of people die and stuff gets blown up. We have to think about what's best for the defense contractors. They have to make ends meet somehow. Why don't they have a right to food on the table? A place to live? They have a constitutional right to freedom, liberty, and the American dream.


LOL blame tham but not Obama? What a moroon, this is all on Obama
/koolaid, this is how it works
 
2013-09-05 09:53:38 AM

patrick767: vygramul:
You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.

There's no "may" about it. He does not need a congressional vote to authorize a strike against Syria.


It's not clear. I'd like to see this get reviewed by the Court, but that will never happen.
 
2013-09-05 09:55:42 AM

Joe Blowme: Granny_Panties: I just hope lots of people die and stuff gets blown up. We have to think about what's best for the defense contractors. They have to make ends meet somehow. Why don't they have a right to food on the table? A place to live? They have a constitutional right to freedom, liberty, and the American dream.

LOL blame tham but not Obama? What a moroon, this is all on Obama
/koolaid, this is how it works


I suspect that this is all part of that MIC conspiracy where it doesn't matter who is in power. You could put Ron Paul in there and we'd be going to war with Syria - one way or another... or so the MIC conspiracy theorists would have us believe.
 
2013-09-05 10:04:54 AM
To be completely honest, I'm ashamed that so many people fail to grasp why punishing the use of chemical weapons is so important.

Most of them would be content to shove their heads into the sand and wait for something terrible to happen to someone they actually care about before it sinks in.

But, whatever.  Tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.
 
2013-09-05 10:13:35 AM

Infernalist: To be completely honest, I'm ashamed that so many people fail to grasp why punishing the use of chemical weapons is so important.

Most of them would be content to shove their heads into the sand and wait for something terrible to happen to someone they actually care about before it sinks in.

But, whatever.  Tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.


That's the most disappointing thing to happen since the US decided that torturing people was ok. The world is regressing. Like anti-vax nuts, people seem to be forgetting exactly what the alternative is.
 
2013-09-05 10:14:53 AM

Infernalist: To be completely honest, I'm ashamed that so many people fail to grasp why punishing the use of chemical weapons is so important.

Most of them would be content to shove their heads into the sand and wait for something terrible to happen to someone they actually care about before it sinks in.

But, whatever.  Tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.


So its not the number of people killed that count anymore, just how they are killed? That explains Best Korea death machine going unchallenged.
 
2013-09-05 10:18:57 AM

Joe Blowme: Infernalist: To be completely honest, I'm ashamed that so many people fail to grasp why punishing the use of chemical weapons is so important.

Most of them would be content to shove their heads into the sand and wait for something terrible to happen to someone they actually care about before it sinks in.

But, whatever.  Tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

So its not the number of people killed that count anymore, just how they are killed? That explains Best Korea death machine going unchallenged.


Are the North Korean authorities using WMDs on their people?
 
2013-09-05 10:19:18 AM

vygramul: patrick767: vygramul:
You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.

There's no "may" about it. He does not need a congressional vote to authorize a strike against Syria.

It's not clear. I'd like to see this get reviewed by the Court, but that will never happen.


The War Powers Act requires authorization for using military force for over 60 days. That restriction has been trampled on before, but using force for lesser time periods has plenty of precedent. Obviously there are plenty of examples before the War Powers Act was passed. After the War Powers Act: Grenada. Panama. Kosovo/Serbia (House voted and tied on a resolution to authorize force. Clinton went ahead). Libya. I may be missing some.
 
2013-09-05 10:19:29 AM
This is who we would be helping

Its like if a nazi and klansmen were in a fight to the death, you done intervene!! You sit back and wait for one to kill the other then take out the winner.
 
2013-09-05 10:23:09 AM

Joe Blowme: This is who we would be helping

Its like if a nazi and klansmen were in a fight to the death, you done intervene!! You sit back and wait for one to kill the other then take out the winner.


You're not grasping the relevant point.
 
2013-09-05 10:27:16 AM

patrick767: vygramul: patrick767: vygramul:
You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.

There's no "may" about it. He does not need a congressional vote to authorize a strike against Syria.

It's not clear. I'd like to see this get reviewed by the Court, but that will never happen.

The War Powers Act requires authorization for using military force for over 60 days. That restriction has been trampled on before, but using force for lesser time periods has plenty of precedent. Obviously there are plenty of examples before the War Powers Act was passed. After the War Powers Act: Grenada. Panama. Kosovo/Serbia (House voted and tied on a resolution to authorize force. Clinton went ahead). Libya. I may be missing some.


The WPR may not be constitutional, and its exception for 60 days was caveated by an immediate threat. Just because we've done something a lot of times, like discriminate against gays, doesn't mean it's constitutional. That's why it's unclear - this kind of use of the military has never received judicial review.
 
2013-09-05 10:29:54 AM
If using WMDs is the big deal, then it's the UN's job to handle it, not ours.
 
2013-09-05 10:30:31 AM

vygramul: imontheinternet: It's a blank check to use force to "deter" and "respond to" attacks.  Degrading the government's capacity to use chemical weapons is only one of four goals.  One of the stated policies under Sec. 5 is to change the tide of the war against the government forces in order to get to a negotiated settlement that "leads to a democratic government in Syria"  The language is clear.  It's regime change.

You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.



 Under the War Powers Act, the President only has to consult with Congress before or within a certain time after launching an attack on another country. Obama is just making sure Congress is on board with these attacks before he goes ahead with them.
 
2013-09-05 10:33:37 AM

UrinalPooper: If using WMDs is the big deal, then it's the UN's job to handle it, not ours.


This is the sort of 'head-in-the-sand' apathy that makes me ashamed.
 
2013-09-05 10:34:00 AM

Bendal: vygramul: imontheinternet: It's a blank check to use force to "deter" and "respond to" attacks.  Degrading the government's capacity to use chemical weapons is only one of four goals.  One of the stated policies under Sec. 5 is to change the tide of the war against the government forces in order to get to a negotiated settlement that "leads to a democratic government in Syria"  The language is clear.  It's regime change.

You know, it's funny. If we were targeting the Al Qaeda rebels, Obama wouldn't need a vote in Congress. In fact, he may not need one now, technically.


 Under the War Powers Act, the President only has to consult with Congress before or within a certain time after launching an attack on another country. Obama is just making sure Congress is on board with these attacks before he goes ahead with them.


Yes, but the 2001 AUMF pretty much trumps all that.
 
2013-09-05 10:35:14 AM

Infernalist: UrinalPooper: If using WMDs is the big deal, then it's the UN's job to handle it, not ours.

This is the sort of 'head-in-the-sand' apathy that makes me ashamed.


Ever notice how people apply a completely foreign morality to international relations than to personal ones? It's like saying that the people who heard Kitty Genovese's cries for help were not morally reprehensible at all.
 
2013-09-05 10:40:01 AM

UrinalPooper: If using WMDs is the big deal, then it's the UN's job to handle it, not ours.


soo....we'll be involved regardless? The reason we're the "World PoliceTM", because if we don't act than no one will. That's why Rwanda happened, we were too busy deciding if we should call it a genocide or a "one-sided fight with not very nice people". We are the only superpower who bothers to give a damn about the plights of people. But if we don't recognize injustice going on in the world, than the rest of the world won't care. Syria only became such a big story in the world because of the use of chemical weapons. No one gave more than a passing "oh right, civil war. Forgot about them. How are they doing?" before this.

You want us to give up the title of "world police" then someone will have to take it from us and no one, not Russia or China or the EU or anyone else wants that because no one has the ability and goodwill with most of the industrialized world like we do. Face it, we are the only ones who can enforce such matters and if we don't bother enforcing it, no one will.
 
2013-09-05 10:43:30 AM

Infernalist: To be completely honest, I'm ashamed that so many people fail to grasp why punishing the use of chemical weapons is so important.

Most of them would be content to shove their heads into the sand and wait for something terrible to happen to someone they actually care about before it sinks in.

But, whatever.  Tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.


Yes, we should punish a party that used chemical weapons by helping another side that used chemical weapons win the war.  That sends a very clear message that the use of chemical weapons will be seen as a valid excuse to start wars and institute regime change in places where we already wanted to start wars and institute regime change.

Also, UN weapons inspectors should be ignored completely.  Unilateral investigations by interested parties are sufficient to conclusively prove who did what and go to war.
 
2013-09-05 10:47:58 AM

imontheinternet: Infernalist: To be completely honest, I'm ashamed that so many people fail to grasp why punishing the use of chemical weapons is so important.

Most of them would be content to shove their heads into the sand and wait for something terrible to happen to someone they actually care about before it sinks in.

But, whatever.  Tired of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

Yes, we should punish a party that used chemical weapons by helping another side that used chemical weapons win the war.  That sends a very clear message that the use of chemical weapons will be seen as a valid excuse to start wars and institute regime change in places where we already wanted to start wars and institute regime change.

Also, UN weapons inspectors should be ignored completely.  Unilateral investigations by interested parties are sufficient to conclusively prove who did what and go to war.


Whenever you want to actually address what I said, I'll be around.  Until then, feel free to continue to ramble on about shiat that I didn't say.
 
2013-09-05 10:49:18 AM

Infernalist: Joe Blowme: This is who we would be helping

Its like if a nazi and klansmen were in a fight to the death, you done intervene!! You sit back and wait for one to kill the other then take out the winner.

You're not grasping the relevant point.


So is it HOW you kill and not HOW MANY you kill?
 
2013-09-05 10:51:27 AM

Joe Blowme: Infernalist: Joe Blowme: This is who we would be helping

Its like if a nazi and klansmen were in a fight to the death, you done intervene!! You sit back and wait for one to kill the other then take out the winner.

You're not grasping the relevant point.

So is it HOW you kill and not HOW MANY you kill?


Yes, exactly.  I think you're finally starting to get it.
 
2013-09-05 10:51:31 AM

vygramul: Yes, but the 2001 AUMF pretty much trumps all that.


I'd still like to see that court tested
 
2013-09-05 10:52:44 AM

imontheinternet: Yes, we should punish a party that used chemical weapons by helping another side that used chemical weapons win the war. That sends a very clear message that the use of chemical weapons will be seen as a valid excuse to start wars and institute regime change in places where we already wanted to start wars and institute regime change.


While I am for the removal and destruction of the chemical weapons (on both sides), I draw the line at regime change. Assad may be an asshole who gasses his own people, but at this point, I'd rather we deal with him than whatever kooky-bananas nutjobs take over.
 
2013-09-05 10:55:15 AM
If they really do know where the chemical weapons are being produced, I am good with a surgical bombing of the plants. (Yes, I know there will be some spill-over but as much as we can limit collateral damage, the better.) Other government sites or civilian neighborhoods? Not so much. If we take out capacity to make chemical weapons, that does benefit everyone except the people using chemical weapons. I'm good with taking out production facilities for the rebels, too, if they are using chemical weapons. Any other type of bombing is not going to benefit us or most of the rest of the world.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 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