Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Will the US congress and senate vote to attack Syria? The answer is yes. Here's why   (nytimes.com) divider line 250
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2941 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 7:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-06 12:03:04 AM  
Wow.

3.bp.blogspot.com

I have never seen that many so-called "conspiracy theories" validated in a single article.

Yowsers!
 
2013-09-06 12:22:44 AM  
And the number one answer IS: $
 
2013-09-06 12:46:44 AM  
Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.  We can't let Assad get away with using chemical warfare, but we really don't want a Syria controlled by Al Qaeda that we'll just have to wage war against in the near future if they start allying with the Palestinians or harassing the Israelis.

Strike Assad, send a clear message, destroy his force's ability to wage war effectively, and then let his regime and the rebels work themselves over until not much is left.  It's probably the most pragmatic approach.
 
2013-09-06 12:55:10 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.  We can't let Assad get away with using chemical warfare, but we really don't want a Syria controlled by Al Qaeda that we'll just have to wage war against in the near future if they start allying with the Palestinians or harassing the Israelis.

Strike Assad, send a clear message, destroy his force's ability to wage war effectively, and then let his regime and the rebels work themselves over until not much is left.  It's probably the most pragmatic approach.


Now you've done it

/you're pitting the conservative passion for Israel against their passionate hatred of Obama
//YOU'RE GOING TO CROSS THE STREAMS!
 
2013-09-06 01:08:36 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.   We can't let Assad get away with using chemical warfare, but we really don't want a Syria controlled by Al Qaeda that we'll just have to wage war against in the near future if they start allying with the Palestinians or harassing the Israelis.

Strike Assad, send a clear message, destroy his force's ability to wage war effectively, and then let his regime and the rebels work themselves over until not much is left.  It's probably the most pragmatic approach.


Who is this WE you speak of?
 
2013-09-06 01:11:10 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.  We can't let Assad get away with using chemical warfare, but we really don't want a Syria controlled by Al Qaeda that we'll just have to wage war against in the near future if they start allying with the Palestinians or harassing the Israelis.

Strike Assad, send a clear message, destroy his force's ability to wage war effectively, and then let his regime and the rebels work themselves over until not much is left.  It's probably the most pragmatic approach.

Now you've done it

/you're pitting the conservative passion for Israel against their passionate hatred of Obama
//YOU'RE GOING TO CROSS THE STREAMS!


I've never understood why support for Israel is more of a conservative thing than a liberal thing.  I'm liberal, but I fully support Israel and their right to the land they lay claim to.  I'd figure more liberals would be support of Israel, it's like affirmative action on an international scale - they're outnumbered and threatened by Islamic states on all side, and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.  I get feeling for the plight of the Palestinians, and I think Israel should absorb them as Israeli citizens and give them equal rights, but still, Israel's bellicosity is more due to the constant and eminent threat that they live in 24/7 than anything else.
 
2013-09-06 01:20:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.


I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.
 
2013-09-06 01:21:01 AM  

HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.


They won it in the six day war.
 
2013-09-06 01:26:25 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

They won it in the six day war.


No

/I'm sorry but I, for one, will not accept expansion by conquest as an acceptable form of growth
//YMMV
 
2013-09-06 01:27:40 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

They won it in the six day war.


Doesn't answer my question. The country established as Israel was already there. Why is that land "rightfully theres" to begin with?
 
2013-09-06 01:28:42 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

They won it in the six day war.



So what exactly, do you imagine is "theirs" as booty of the six day war?

Syria? Egypt?

Both?
 
2013-09-06 01:32:09 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

They won it in the six day war.

No

/I'm sorry but I, for one, will not accept expansion by conquest as an acceptable form of growth
//YMMV


It's a time tested approach.

HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

They won it in the six day war.

Doesn't answer my question. The country established as Israel was already there. Why is that land "rightfully theres" to begin with?


Israel was there, and then the surrounding nations provoked them to war through terrorist attacks against Israel.  Israel took them down, and claimed a prize.  If you don't want to risk losing some of your land, don't attack your neighbors.
 
2013-09-06 01:35:12 AM  
Congress ANd the Senate? Subby needs to go back to civics.
 
2013-09-06 01:35:47 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Israel was there, and then the surrounding nations provoked them to war through terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel took them down, and claimed a prize. If you don't want to risk losing some of your land, don't attack your neighbors.


Still not answering my original question.

No worries, I'll wait ...
 
2013-09-06 01:38:39 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's a time tested approach.


Ok

/having proven their capabilities, and thus owning all they conquer, Israel obviously doesn't need our intervention in matters in the region
//I'm fine with that, too
 
2013-09-06 01:45:17 AM  

HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: Israel was there, and then the surrounding nations provoked them to war through terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel took them down, and claimed a prize. If you don't want to risk losing some of your land, don't attack your neighbors.

Still not answering my original question.

No worries, I'll wait ...


What question?  The land is rightfully theirs because they won it in the war, it doesn't matter what the original boundaries were, when they were attacked they seized the opportunity to claim the new land.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TuteTibiImperes: It's a time tested approach.

Ok

/having proven their capabilities, and thus owning all they conquer, Israel obviously doesn't need our intervention in matters in the region
//I'm fine with that, too


They're still our best allies in the region, sure, there have been some tiffs, but our relations with Israel are far better than they are with anyone else over there, except perhaps Turkey which is about on the same level.  It make sense to help them out in exchange for that continued support.
 
2013-09-06 01:46:52 AM  
*sigh*
 
2013-09-06 01:48:43 AM  

HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.


Honestly, I think it's theirs because they live there and control it (not that that should shut down any legitimate griping about the plight of the Palestinians or what have you). I know that sounds simplified and stupid, maybe it is. Land changes hands over time and people migrate all over the place. My land switched hands many times before it was mine, it used to be New Spain, Apache territory, part of Mexico, a Confederate Territory, etc. But it is all rightfully mine at the moment. I don't really feel good about the booting of some of the aforementioned owners, but it was a while ago.
 
2013-09-06 01:50:53 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: Israel was there, and then the surrounding nations provoked them to war through terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel took them down, and claimed a prize. If you don't want to risk losing some of your land, don't attack your neighbors.

Still not answering my original question.

No worries, I'll wait ...

What question?  The land is rightfully theirs because they won it in the war, it doesn't matter what the original boundaries were, when they were attacked they seized the opportunity to claim the new land.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TuteTibiImperes: It's a time tested approach.

Ok

/having proven their capabilities, and thus owning all they conquer, Israel obviously doesn't need our intervention in matters in the region
//I'm fine with that, too

They're still our best allies in the region, sure, there have been some tiffs, but our relations with Israel are far better than they are with anyone else over there, except perhaps Turkey which is about on the same level.  It make sense to help them out in exchange for that continued support.


OK... I think you're trolling now
 
2013-09-06 01:51:28 AM  

violentsalvation: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

Honestly, I think it's theirs because they live there and control it (not that that should shut down any legitimate griping about the plight of the Palestinians or what have you). I know that sounds simplified and stupid, maybe it is. Land changes hands over time and people migrate all over the place. My land switched hands many times before it was mine, it used to be New Spain, Apache territory, part of Mexico, a Confederate Territory, etc. But it is all rightfully mine at the moment. I don't really feel good about the booting of some of the aforementioned owners, but it was a while ago.


It's just a mess, all of it. I wish I could think of a solution ...
 
2013-09-06 01:51:39 AM  

HawgWild: *sigh*


The USA obtained a good portion of our land via conquest through various wars with the British, Spain, Mexico, and and Native Americans.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I don't have a problem with Israel using the same methods.
 
2013-09-06 01:52:11 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: OK... I think you're trolling now


Think?!
 
2013-09-06 01:54:14 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: *sigh*

The USA obtained a good portion of our land via conquest through various wars with the British, Spain, Mexico, and and Native Americans.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I don't have a problem with Israel using the same methods.


I'm going to type this slowly, because methinks you don't comprehend so well.

Why. Is. Israel. There. In. The. First. Place. ?.
 
2013-09-06 01:54:31 AM  

HawgWild: MaudlinMutantMollusk: OK... I think you're trolling now

Think?!


I've been drinking

/not quite as quick on the draw as I should be
//but... FFS...
 
2013-09-06 01:56:37 AM  
MaudlinMutantMollusk:

OK... I think you're trolling now

Do you think anyone else in the middle east has our backs as much as Israel does?  The Saudis and UAE tolerate us because we can ensure that the oil flows freely, and we're a big customer, Turkey gets NATO benefits, Pakistan hates us, Iran dislikes us almost as much, Iraq and Afghanistan are probably 50/50 between the liberated and the insurgents and who knows which way they'll go, Jordan is generally on good terms but is a minor player, Egypt is in political upheaval and could turn on a dime if someone else proves a better suitor, and everyone else is too small to warrant attention.
 
2013-09-06 01:58:08 AM  

HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: *sigh*

The USA obtained a good portion of our land via conquest through various wars with the British, Spain, Mexico, and and Native Americans.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I don't have a problem with Israel using the same methods.

I'm going to type this slowly, because methinks you don't comprehend so well.

Why. Is. Israel. There. In. The. First. Place. ?.


The Jewish People wanted their own nation and we, amongst others, helped them create it.
 
2013-09-06 02:03:23 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk:

OK... I think you're trolling now

Do you think anyone else in the middle east has our backs as much as Israel does?  The Saudis and UAE tolerate us because we can ensure that the oil flows freely, and we're a big customer, Turkey gets NATO benefits, Pakistan hates us, Iran dislikes us almost as much, Iraq and Afghanistan are probably 50/50 between the liberated and the insurgents and who knows which way they'll go, Jordan is generally on good terms but is a minor player, Egypt is in political upheaval and could turn on a dime if someone else proves a better suitor, and everyone else is too small to warrant attention.


And again... if Israel is so powerful, why do they need us?

/what exactly do they do for us again?
//their current administration pretty much hates our current administration, BTW
 
2013-09-06 02:06:22 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk:

OK... I think you're trolling now

Do you think anyone else in the middle east has our backs as much as Israel does?  The Saudis and UAE tolerate us because we can ensure that the oil flows freely, and we're a big customer, Turkey gets NATO benefits, Pakistan hates us, Iran dislikes us almost as much, Iraq and Afghanistan are probably 50/50 between the liberated and the insurgents and who knows which way they'll go, Jordan is generally on good terms but is a minor player, Egypt is in political upheaval and could turn on a dime if someone else proves a better suitor, and everyone else is too small to warrant attention.

And again... if Israel is so powerful, why do they need us?

/what exactly do they do for us again?
//their current administration pretty much hates our current administration, BTW


I disagree that they hate us.  They make a lot of noise and use it for their own benefit, but they know that we're they're meal ticket and would fall in line if it came down to it.

I do agree that we should make use of them more, Syria would be a great opportunity for that, fund them and let them run the operation.
 
2013-09-06 02:40:17 AM  

HawgWild: violentsalvation: HawgWild: TuteTibiImperes: and they just want what's rightfully theirs and to be able to live in peace once they have it.

I'm not trolling. Truly, I'm not. But explain how that land is "rightfully theirs". And don't say, "cuz God."

Seriously. Can't wait.

Honestly, I think it's theirs because they live there and control it (not that that should shut down any legitimate griping about the plight of the Palestinians or what have you). I know that sounds simplified and stupid, maybe it is. Land changes hands over time and people migrate all over the place. My land switched hands many times before it was mine, it used to be New Spain, Apache territory, part of Mexico, a Confederate Territory, etc. But it is all rightfully mine at the moment. I don't really feel good about the booting of some of the aforementioned owners, but it was a while ago.

It's just a mess, all of it. I wish I could think of a solution ...


Guess it wasn't so final after all.

We'll always have wars and genocides, there is no fixing it, it's the one single thing humanity is collectively good at. Hating and killing other people.
 
2013-09-06 03:05:03 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Congress ANd the Senate? Subby needs to go back to civics.



Will there be 1 vote or two votes?

One or 2?
 
2013-09-06 03:08:43 AM  

Amos Quito: cameroncrazy1984: Congress ANd the Senate? Subby needs to go back to civics.


Will there be 1 vote or two votes?

One or 2?


It would be interesting to see if anyone broke out the approval ratings for the House and the Senate separately (as far as I can tell no one does).  The Senate, overall, is doing an OK job.  They're still not doing a heck of a lot, but a lot of that is because they know anything they pass will likely just fail in the House.  At least most Senators are acting like adults (though there are certainly exceptions).
 
2013-09-06 03:13:36 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk: TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk:

OK... I think you're trolling now

Do you think anyone else in the middle east has our backs as much as Israel does?  The Saudis and UAE tolerate us because we can ensure that the oil flows freely, and we're a big customer, Turkey gets NATO benefits, Pakistan hates us, Iran dislikes us almost as much, Iraq and Afghanistan are probably 50/50 between the liberated and the insurgents and who knows which way they'll go, Jordan is generally on good terms but is a minor player, Egypt is in political upheaval and could turn on a dime if someone else proves a better suitor, and everyone else is too small to warrant attention.

And again... if Israel is so powerful, why do they need us?

/what exactly do they do for us again?
//their current administration pretty much hates our current administration, BTW

I disagree that they hate us.  They make a lot of noise and use it for their own benefit, but they know that we're they're meal ticket and would fall in line if it came down to it.

I do agree that we should make use of them more, Syria would be a great opportunity for that, fund them and let them run the operation.


Sounds more like the US would be the one being used.
 
2013-09-06 04:49:11 AM  

I'm having a hard time getting a handle on all this.  Its all so weird.  WTF is going on here.


The New York Times isn't going all aluminum tubes, and Judi Riorden is publishing articles like this.


In fact, the New York times is publishing this

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West
i.imgur.com


Then, you have Adelson of all people joining up. That guy spent $70 million trying to beat Obama.

Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike
Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons.
Opponents of U.S. military intervention in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern country include Occupy Wall Street, which protests against Wall Street profits; Code Pink, an antiwar group; and the Russians.
Interest groups and activists are ratcheting up their advocacy ahead of the Sept. 9 return of Congress to Washington, when lawmakers plan to take up Obama's request for authorization of a limited military strike. The request came after U.S. officials concluded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime on Aug. 21 fired chemical weapons into rebel-held areas near Damascus that killed more than 1,400 people, including 400 children.
"For our credibility, we have to do something," said Morris Amitay, founder of the pro-Israel Washington Political Action Committee.
The president has said a military response is necessary to uphold a longstanding international ban on chemical weapons use and to deter Assad from using them again on his people or such neighbors as Israel and Jordan, two U.S. allies.

Rabbis' Briefing
Obama made the same argument Aug. 30 on a 30-minute conference call with 1,000 rabbis. Obama conducts such a call annually. This time, at the White House's request, Syria was the topic of the first question, asked by Rabbi Gerald Skolnik of the Forest Hills Jewish Center in Queens, president of the Rabbinical Assembly, the association of Conservative rabbis.
While Iran wasn't mentioned in the call, it was viewed by participants as part of the context of the president's remarks. 'We have a very strong stake in the world taking seriously our insistence that weapons of mass destruction should not proliferate," said one of those on the call, Rabbi Rick Block, president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, a New York-based organization of Reform rabbis.
The support Obama is getting from pro-Israel groups in the U.S. is important because of their history of political influence. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish groups have long helped secure continued U.S. aid to Israel, mobilizing activists who visit or call lawmakers. The effort is supplemented by several political action committees that donate to candidates depending on their support for Israel.

Political Giving
The pro-Israel community contributed $14.5 million to federal campaigns for the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than the $11.1 million in donations by the defense aerospace industry, one of the biggest and most consistent political contributors.
While most of the Jewish groups' donations lean Democratic, Adelson alone transformed the 2012 Republican primary when he and his wife used $15 million in private funds to sustain the unsuccessful candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and then poured $53 million into groups advancing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In all, Adelson and his wife donated $93 million to Republican causes in the 2012 campaign, center data shows.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, which counts Adelson as a board member, yesterday sent an "action alert" to its 45,000 members, directing them to tell Congress to authorize force. "This is not a partisan issue," the coalition said in its message.

Adelson Support
It spent $6.4 million against Obama last year, according to the center, a Washington-based research group that tracks campaign spending.
Adelson, a Las Vegas casino owner, supports the coalition's Syria message, his spokesman Ron Reese said in an e-mail.
The RJC's counterpart, the National Jewish Democratic Council, today added its voice to a chorus of U.S.-based Jewish groups urging military intervention. Others include AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Their advocacy began after a telephone briefing yesterday with White House deputy national security advisers Tony Blinken and Ben Rhodes, who outlined the case for action against Syria, according to a participant who asked for anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss it publicly.

Pre-Holiday Pitch
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said the group decided to act before the Jewish high holidays, when rabbis will likely speak on Syria. Rosh Hashanah begins tonight.
Jewish groups said their concern was that a failure to take action against Syria would send lessons to other countries, most notably Iran, that they could act with impunity.
"This is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah," AIPAC said in its statement, referring to the Lebanese militia group the U.S. characterizes as a terrorist organization. "Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country's credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country's security and interests and those of our regional allies."
U.S. organizations that support the anti-Assad rebels, including the Coalition for a Democratic Syria and the Syrian Support Group, said they are asking their members to urge Congress to back Obama's plan.

Rebel Advocacy
"We're going to be trying to show that if strikes take a particular form, it would be helpful to the opposition and could back Assad into a corner," said Dan Layman, a spokesman for the Syrian Support Group, which has an office in Washington.
The Syrian Institute for Progress, a nonprofit group founded last year in California, bought a half-page advertisement in yesterday's Washington Post. A photograph in the ad shows the bodies of Syrian children who presumably died in the gas attack and says in part, "We share President Obama's outrage over the chemical attacks in Syria. America's credibility and national interests are at stake."
Syrian groups supportive of the rebels are communicating with lawmakers on the issue.
"We're getting calls from members and their staffs asking for help," said Mohammed Ghanem, director of government relations at the Syrian American Council, a founding member of the Coalition for a Democratic Syria, which has an office near the White House and another on Capitol Hill. "We're working all day and into the night now."

U.S. Interests
The coalition's main objective, he said, is to convince Americans that "it's in the best interest of the U.S., not just Syria, that the use of chemical weapons not go unchallenged."
That pro-intervention message is bumping up against an American public largely opposed to taking action in Syria. A Pew Research poll released yesterday that was conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 showed 48 percent opposed, while 29 percent favored air strikes in Syria.
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said a half-dozen lawmakers of both parties have called him to ask his opinions about Syria -- compared with no one prior to the start of the Iraq war in 2003. He said he has received calls from members of both parties, "enough that makes me say some folks are concerned about this."
Zogby opposed the Iraq war and opposes military action against Syria.
"I'm not sure what the end goal is," he said.

Settlement Skepticism
Noting that Secretary of State John Kerry, a leader in building support for military action, "says that ultimately there has to be a negotiated settlement" in Syria, Zogby added, "I don't see how this contributes to a negotiated settlement."
A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday on Obama's request that featured Kerry was interrupted by antiwar protesters, including several from the group Code Pink, a women's peace group founded just before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. Co-founder Medea Benjamin, wearing a pink shirt and clutching pink signs, was dragged from the hearing while shouting, "Nobody wants this war," as Kerry concluded his opening remarks.
Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said Russians have been lobbying against intervention.

 
2013-09-06 06:27:48 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.  We can't let Assad get away with using chemical warfare, but we really don't want a Syria controlled by Al Qaeda that we'll just have to wage war against in the near future if they start allying with the Palestinians or harassing the Israelis.

Strike Assad, send a clear message, destroy his force's ability to wage war effectively, and then let his regime and the rebels work themselves over until not much is left.  It's probably the most pragmatic approach.


The best choice for us would be to mind our own business.
 
2013-09-06 06:41:43 AM  

DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.   We can't let Assad get away with using chemical warfare, but we really don't want a Syria controlled by Al Qaeda that we'll just have to wage war against in the near future if they start allying with the Palestinians or harassing the Israelis.

Strike Assad, send a clear message, destroy his force's ability to wage war effectively, and then let his regime and the rebels work themselves over until not much is left.  It's probably the most pragmatic approach.

The best choice for us would be to mind our own business.


Perhaps it's a difference between Tute's "We", and your "Us".

I'm in the "not the US's problem" camp.

/America has it's own problems to solve foremost.
 
2013-09-06 07:00:40 AM  
If we stop using missiles profits will go down and that would be bad. Get used to the fact that the USA will be lobbing missiles at somebody until our empire collapses under the weight of it all.
 
2013-09-06 07:18:03 AM  
I don't know, watching a dictator spend two and a half years bombing the shiat out of his own people is not great.
 
2013-09-06 07:21:52 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Do you think anyone else in the middle east has our backs as much as Israel does?


Israel has our backs?
 
2013-09-06 07:23:29 AM  

HawgWild: Why. Is. Israel. There. In. The. First. Place. ?.


Because the United States and Western Europe needed a strategic check on Soviet Expansion in the Middle East.  (Sure, there were a lot of other factors, but the reason we REALLY did it was not because God, but because Communism.)
 
2013-09-06 07:27:17 AM  
GOP isolationists don't really give a shiat about israel, and they're the party rock stars right now.
 
2013-09-06 07:32:06 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.


Not for us, and no it isn't.  We don't know for sure who used chemical weapons.  So please, we need fewer irresponsible voices giving us another of these...

i43.tinypic.com

So kindly stop posting your support for war even while we have little information.  By the way, are you or your children signed up to fight, or are you just willing to send other people to die for your "smart choice"?
 
2013-09-06 07:33:36 AM  

HawgWild: Why. Is. Israel. There. In. The. First. Place. ?.


If you think Israel was unnaturally created, you might want to look up the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which created countries like Syria and Iraq. It's sort of like complaining about Splenda in your Jello. It detracts from more legitimate concerns over current US-Israeli relations.
 
2013-09-06 07:34:24 AM  
storage.canoe.ca
 
2013-09-06 07:34:38 AM  
 
2013-09-06 07:41:09 AM  

Hobodeluxe: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-aipac-planning-maj o r-lobbying-blitz-on-syria


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) will deploy up to 250 Jewish leaders and activists to Capitol Hill starting next week to warn members of Congress that failure to take action in Syria will raise the risk of Iran developing a nuclear bombresult in sizable campaign contributions to their next election opponent.  , officials told Politico.

Fixed that for truth.
 
2013-09-06 07:45:02 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: *sigh*

The USA obtained a good portion of our land via conquest through various wars with the British, Spain, Mexico, and and Native Americans.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I don't have a problem with Israel using the same methods.


Me neither. I just don't feel like backing their play with my resources any more. We need to end these phoney alliances - they entangle us worldwide, just as the Framers warned us they would if we let this happen.
Of course, my humility toward the founding fathers is inspired by my being a humbled old man - a brilliant twelve year old at mommy's computer may come to different conclusions, and believe this "America, Hero Nation" dogshiat.
I'm all in favor of the Jewrabs killing each other - I just don't want to pay or be involved - it isn't necessary.
 
2013-09-06 07:45:11 AM  
It's funny how folks think Israel wants to use the U.S. as their puppet.

As we've seen from the bombing of the Syrian Nuclear Weapons Facility a few years ago, Israel doesn't have to ask our permission/help to drop a few bombs. If you think they're worried about the international reaction to a strike, just think back to that Nuke Factory they bombed, there was a little bit of resentment from Arab nations, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Does Israel have a problem with Obama jihading Assad? No, of course not. But if they really saw a threat, they'd handle it.
 
2013-09-06 07:51:19 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: TuteTibiImperes: Israel's position makes sense, and it's probably the smartest choice for us.

Not for us, and no it isn't.  We don't know for sure who used chemical weapons.  So please, we need fewer irresponsible voices giving us another of these...



So kindly stop posting your support for war even while we have little information.  By the way, are you or your children signed up to fight, or are you just willing to send other people to die for your "smart choice"?


the administration claims to have the information
 
2013-09-06 07:55:31 AM  

jso2897: TuteTibiImperes: HawgWild: *sigh*

The USA obtained a good portion of our land via conquest through various wars with the British, Spain, Mexico, and and Native Americans.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I don't have a problem with Israel using the same methods.

Me neither. I just don't feel like backing their play with my resources any more. We need to end these phoney alliances - they entangle us worldwide, just as the Framers warned us they would if we let this happen.
Of course, my humility toward the founding fathers is inspired by my being a humbled old man - a brilliant twelve year old at mommy's computer may come to different conclusions, and believe this "America, Hero Nation" dogshiat.
I'm all in favor of the Jewrabs killing each other - I just don't want to pay or be involved - it isn't necessary.


anywhere the us creates a vacuum by limiting it's interest other nations and interests step in with their own agendas
 
2013-09-06 07:56:09 AM  
limiting its interests
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report