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.

(Talking Points Memo)   GOP rep: I'm for limited strikes on Syria. President Obama: I'm for limited strikes on Syria. GOP Rep: Whoa, there. Let's not be hasty about this   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP, President Obama, Mike Coffman, wars, chemical warfares, Assad regime  
•       •       •

2003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 1:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-06 12:04:48 PM  
president obama: breathing air is a good thing.
GOP rep: *holds breath*
 
2013-09-06 12:06:04 PM  
This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.
 
2013-09-06 12:06:09 PM  
Is anybody not for striking Syria? I mean besides the American people and the military?
 
2013-09-06 12:13:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


i would love obama to come out and say that we should lower the top income tax rate to zero percent, abolish the EPA, FDA and DEA and scrap obamacare, just to see what the GOP would do.
 
2013-09-06 12:15:52 PM  

FlashHarry: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

i would love obama to come out and say that we should lower the top income tax rate to zero percent, abolish the EPA, FDA and DEA and scrap obamacare, just to see what the GOP would do.


Probably they'd become the most liberal party in the country, is my guess.
 
2013-09-06 12:17:08 PM  

FlashHarry: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

i would love obama to come out and say that we should lower the top income tax rate to zero percent, abolish the EPA, FDA and DEA and scrap obamacare, just to see what the GOP would do.


They'd call that "compromise", and still be against it as "not enough".
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-06 12:23:13 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-06 12:38:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


Doesn't hurt their brains at all. At this point, they've become completely fixated on opposing him. Any damage it does to any of their other causes is acceptable collateral damage.
 
2013-09-06 12:42:17 PM  

MrBallou: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

Doesn't hurt their brains at all. At this point, they've become completely fixated on opposing him. Any damage it does to any of their other causes is acceptable collateral damage.


Unless and until it starts losing them elections. Which, in the house may take a few cycles but in the Senate they'll probably lose seats in 2014 because you can't gerrymander entire states.
 
2013-09-06 12:53:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MrBallou: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

Doesn't hurt their brains at all. At this point, they've become completely fixated on opposing him. Any damage it does to any of their other causes is acceptable collateral damage.

Unless and until it starts losing them elections. Which, in the house may take a few cycles but in the Senate they'll probably lose seats in 2014 because you can't gerrymander entire states.


Shhhhhh. The later they realize that, the better for the country.
 
2013-09-06 01:13:02 PM  
He should turn his attention to more pressing national issues and take an open stance that putting one's balls in a food processor is a bad idea.
 
2013-09-06 01:13:57 PM  
Is there music with his tap-dancing?
 
2013-09-06 01:14:09 PM  
sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-09-06 01:14:57 PM  

vpb: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x385]


The button that says "Neo-Cons" is funny.

Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.
 
2013-09-06 01:15:05 PM  
Congress will vote no. Assad will gas more people. Congress will be outraged again and at some point the Democratic members of congress will do electoral math: How many gassed kids does it take for them to lose support from their liberal base.
 
2013-09-06 01:15:09 PM  
The party has taken a very Gingrichian approach here.

They're probably terrified that Obama's actions will topple another dictator.
 
182
2013-09-06 01:15:23 PM  

FlashHarry: president obama: breathing air is a good thing.
GOP rep: *holds breath*


thread over
 
2013-09-06 01:16:02 PM  
Oh yeah and

In before the dude who keeps posting the "Don't let Syria distract you from NSA"-derp.
 
2013-09-06 01:16:34 PM  
Gee, you'd think that a guy like Coffman would stand by his statement. Unless, of course, he misspoke, in which case, he apologizes.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-06 01:20:28 PM  

Aristocles: Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.


Really?  Know how I know you don't know what an actual neo-conservative is?

You're too young to remember the whole Iraq thing aren't you?
 
2013-09-06 01:25:06 PM  
"There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.
 
2013-09-06 01:25:45 PM  

Aristocles: Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.


Subject is a  Neo-Liberal (a.k.a "Clintonian"). Similar views on internationalism stemming from a common deonominator in Wilsonian Idealism.
 
2013-09-06 01:25:51 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: He should turn his attention to more pressing national issues and take an open stance that putting one's balls in a food processor is a bad idea.



i105.photobucket.com
i105.photobucket.com
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-06 01:27:46 PM  

vpb: Aristocles: Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.

Really?  Know how I know you don't know what an actual neo-conservative is?

You're too young to remember the whole Iraq thing aren't you?


Somacandra: Aristocles: Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.

Subject is a  Neo-Liberal (a.k.a "Clintonian"). Similar views on internationalism stemming from a common deonominator in Wilsonian Idealism.


Oh right, silly me, Obama can't be a neo-con because he's not a jew.
 
2013-09-06 01:28:43 PM  

Uzzah: Gee, you'd think that a guy like Coffman would stand by his statement. Unless, of course, he misspoke, in which case, he apologizes if anyone misunderstood or incorrectly took offense..


FTFY
 
2013-09-06 01:36:38 PM  

lilbjorn: [sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 550x401]


Well done.  That's some of the best snark I've seen on line in quite a while!
 
2013-09-06 01:41:33 PM  

Atillathepun: Uzzah: Gee, you'd think that a guy like Coffman would stand by his statement. Unless, of course, he misspoke, in which case, he apologizes if anyone misunderstood or incorrectly took offense..

FTFY


yes. the non-apology apology.
 
2013-09-06 01:43:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


Watching this spectacle play out has gifted me with a very special mental image, of a young Barack Obama chasing numerous Republican senators around a playground with one of their own populist suggestions impaled on a stick, yelling "COME ON, TOUCH IT!"
 
2013-09-06 01:50:50 PM  
You'd think the Russians would want us to destroy Syria's military capabilities. They'll have to replace it, that means more business for Putin and Russian arms dealers.
 
2013-09-06 01:58:42 PM  
imageshack.us

I'm still horrified that this attitude is the only chance of keeping us from war in Syria.

(because the two liberals in Congress certainly don't have enough votes on their own)
 
2013-09-06 01:59:54 PM  
Who was it yesterday -- oh, yeah, Ros-Lehtinen -- who said Obama was weak for asking Congressional approval for air strikes, but we should approve air strikes just like St. Ronnie did.
 
2013-09-06 02:08:46 PM  
Obama should just get start throwing logic puzzles at Congress.

Obama: "I always lie."
Biden: "I always tell the truth. Don't believe Obama, he's lying."
Clinton: "Biden told me that Obama told him that he wants to invade Syria."
 
2013-09-06 02:11:44 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: "There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.


Hell, I'm moderate liberal who is conceptually supportive of military action in response to chemical weapon use, and I think those are CRITICAL questions.
 
2013-09-06 02:14:39 PM  
Yeah, the Neocon's dilemma is the one silver lining to this clusterfark.

Pro:
1. Kill brown people who speak muslim
2. BibiNetanyahu will be happy and might sleep with us
3. Spend huge amounts of government money on million-dollar, one-use items that literally explode
4. Strong possibility of sending some 18-year-olds to go die in the middle east
5. If things go just right, could end up with a decade-long, open-ended engagement with no possibility of success

Anti:
1. Obama's idea
2. Obama might want to leave before we've finished blowing everything up
 
2013-09-06 02:17:24 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Is anybody not for striking Syria? I mean besides the American people and the military?


Obama is not for it. He is just saying he is to get the GOP to go against it.
 
2013-09-06 02:20:01 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Is anybody not for striking Syria? I mean besides the American people and the military?


And pretty much the rest of the planet, excluding Israel. But yeah, other than that, I think pretty much everyone is on board.
 
2013-09-06 02:21:00 PM  
[leaves a small bouquet for That Which Just Went THUMP In The Thread]
 
2013-09-06 02:21:51 PM  

mgshamster: Nadie_AZ: Is anybody not for striking Syria? I mean besides the American people and the military?

Obama is not for it. He is just saying he is to get the GOP to go against it.


Yes, it's all great fun. Times have never been better for the president. Why didn't he think of this earlier?
 
2013-09-06 02:22:39 PM  

Deneb81: tallguywithglasseson: "There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.

Hell, I'm moderate liberal who is conceptually supportive of military action in response to chemical weapon use, and I think those are CRITICAL questions.


This.  Exactly and completely this.
 
2013-09-06 02:24:05 PM  

Aristocles: Oh right, silly me, Obama can't be a neo-con because he's not a jew.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-06 02:25:03 PM  
Dont worry subby, POTUS forgot he red-lined himself into a corner and is prepared to go full on Blame Bush mode.
 
2013-09-06 02:28:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


The other side of the coin being "The best part about the whole thing is the Democratic Party who are generally not okay with lobbing missiles into a sovereign nation twisting in knots as they try to support the Democrat President who wants to lob missiles into a sovereign nation."

While honestly the best part about this whole thing is that it has split both parties and brought us a truly bi-partisan debate. Sure there are disingenuous Republican party loyalists who change their mind because Obama is for it, just like there were disingenuous Democrats who were for regime change in Iraq when Clinton was for it, but against it because Bush was for it. Again, the Party First attitude runs through both parties not just one.

The better thing would be if the Congress voted down authorization, even if it's at the behest of the disingenuous, and then Obama launched attacks anyway, forcing a Constitutional Crisis - ideally, though I doubt it would happen, Congress would then move to impeach and we could finally have a debate on whether or not acts of war are "acts of diplomacy" or acts of war. So far both Congress and the Executive have been just peachy ignoring the laws and allowing presidents to commit acts of war, as a form of diplomacy, rather than going to Congress to get approval to commit acts of war.

Personally I'm of the opinion that lobbing missiles into a sovereign nation is an act of war and should be treated as such; killing another nations population is *not* diplomacy in my book, it's the breakdown of diplomacy.

/could care less if Obama is acquitted or convicted in the impeachment, it's about having the debate in front of the American public that's important.
 
2013-09-06 02:28:58 PM  
Goddam John McCain, without a trace of irony....


"The fact is [President] Bashar Assad has massacred 100,000 people. The conflict is spreading ... Iraq has now become a haven for al-Qaeda and the violence is greater than in 2008, the Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in, and it's an unfair fight," McCain said. "And no one wants American boots on the ground. Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that."

He added that the president has "bungled" the response to Syria "beyond belief" by consulting Congress after anouncing he would strike Syria."


You screwed up by not going in without asking us, and if you now do what I said you should have, you should be impeached.

Fark every one of these guys.
 
2013-09-06 02:29:50 PM  

FlashHarry: president obama: breathing air is a good thing.
GOP rep: *holds breath*


It works the other way, too, but yeah that's about right.  But any opposition to a Syrian intervention is good if it succeeds, even if it's mere partisan obstruction.

There's no rational reason to put American soldiers in danger or spend a single penny on military action.
 
2013-09-06 02:31:04 PM  

Kittypie070: [leaves a small bouquet for That Which Just Went THUMP In The Thread]


Aww, Thanks Kittypie070 the weekend was sadly looking dry for me, so your gift is very welcome :) -- but I posted after you, so how did you know I was posting?? ;)
 
2013-09-06 02:31:31 PM  
This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?
 
2013-09-06 02:32:10 PM  
Wow, this thread is just chocked full of stupid. From what I've been reading, congressional phone lines have been jammed all week by constituents calling in to overwhelmingly OPPOSE military action in Syria. I'm sure that couldn't have anything at all to do with his change in stance. It clearly has to be because all Republicans are complete idiots who always instinctively do the exact opposite of what Obama wants. Well, except for the Republicans who are supporting him on military action, despite the obvious public sentiment against it. They're probably RINOs, or something. I'm also not sure how it explains the Democrats who are opposed to a military strike. Maybe they're closet racists?? All I know for sure is that it has to be 100% about Obama.
 
2013-09-06 02:39:28 PM  

paygun: This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?


Don't be silly, Obama's just cleaning up after Bush got us into this illegal war in Syria.
 
2013-09-06 02:46:48 PM  

CanisNoir: Kittypie070: [leaves a small bouquet for That Which Just Went THUMP In The Thread]

Aww, Thanks Kittypie070 the weekend was sadly looking dry for me, so your gift is very welcome :) -- but I posted after you, so how did you know I was posting?? ;)


Hi Canis. I'm sorry but it was not you that went THUMP.

I simply had an enraged dish of Peking Mutton-Flavoured Duck go mysteriously...missing...after I attempted to throw it at an annoying herbivore.

/gets out the red glass hookah
 
2013-09-06 02:52:05 PM  

Kittypie070: [leaves a small bouquet for That Which Just Went THUMP In The Thread]


I am royally confused by this?
Is "That Which Just Went THUMP" a farker?
I think I am officially old and not understanding kids these days
 
2013-09-06 02:56:36 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: "There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.


Answers:
1. Very.

2. Probably relatively effective. It will certainly be far more effective than doing nothing, and will unquestionably make us far more credible when trying to prevent future chemical, biological or nuclear events elsewhere (with the elephant in the room being Iran).

3. We'll retain control over how involved we are. We're already involved, the question is how involved we want to be and how we structure that involvement. Our intent with these strikes is to weaken Assad's military capability without removing him from power. This is intended to work in concert with our actions supporting moderate rebel elements- simply by virtue of greater resources, we hope to help moderates develop a leadership role within the assortment of rebel groups. Weakening Assad reduces the death toll, prevents future chemical weapons involvement, and allows leadership from those groups to emerge and overthrow him themselves.

Standing by and sticking fingers in our ears is not a peaceful stance. It just enables Assad and those like him.
 
2013-09-06 02:57:58 PM  

paygun: This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?


how, pray tell, would electing obama (or romney, or anyone for that matter) prevent a dictator from going full retard like assad has done?
 
2013-09-06 03:02:13 PM  

p the boiler: Kittypie070: [leaves a small bouquet for That Which Just Went THUMP In The Thread]

I am royally confused by this?
Is "That Which Just Went THUMP" a farker?
I think I am officially old and not understanding kids these days


Nope.

Mod.

They do come in and thump things up now n then.
 
2013-09-06 03:02:40 PM  

FlashHarry: paygun: This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?

how, pray tell, would electing obama (or romney, or anyone for that matter) prevent a dictator from going full retard like assad has done?


The nation ain't gonna build itself!  I bet he's got yellow cake.
 
2013-09-06 03:05:33 PM  

CanisNoir: Personally I'm of the opinion that lobbing missiles into a sovereign nation is an act of war and should be treated as such; killing another nations population is *not* diplomacy in my book, it's the breakdown of diplomacy.

/could care less if Obama is acquitted or convicted in the impeachment, it's about having the debate in front of the American public that's important.


I'm sure you felt the same about Iraq.  What a joke.
 
2013-09-06 03:19:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


My conspiracy theory is that Obama is looking to test the War Powers Act and the Unitary Executive theory in the long run.
 
2013-09-06 03:19:24 PM  

cptjeff: We'll retain control over how involved we are. We're already involved, the question is how involved we want to be and how we structure that involvement.


Oh yeah? So, let's say we strike at Assad's CWs. Then, the country goes even further to hell. Maybe we miss some and Assad goes full genocide with the ones we missed. Maybe Al Qaeda takes over some serious military assets. Whatever. Point is, we bombed the place and now it is going (further) to hell. What do we do? What level of involvement is obligated from us? The answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..
 
2013-09-06 03:27:16 PM  

CynicalLA: I'm sure you felt the same about Iraq. What a joke.


Iraq was a different theater with different variables. Has Asaad fired missiles at US War Planes enforcing a No Fly Zone? Don't think so. Has Syria played "hide and go f*ck yourself" with UN Weapons inspectors? Nope. Are we currently at a State of War with Syria and operating under a "cease fire agreement" that has been continuously violated? Don't think so. Is Obama's end game in Syria clearly stated as "Regime Change"? don't think so. Not to mention, Bush went to Congress and got their approval. Would I have preferred Congress actually DECLARE WAR, of course.

Trying to compare this to Iraq is the real joke.
 
2013-09-06 03:31:33 PM  

paygun: This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?


No.
 
2013-09-06 03:38:03 PM  

thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..


Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?
 
2013-09-06 03:49:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?


All of them.
 
2013-09-06 03:59:44 PM  

CanisNoir: Iraq was a different theater with different variables. Has Asaad fired missiles at US War Planes enforcing a No Fly Zone? Don't think so. Has Syria played "hide and go f*ck yourself" with UN Weapons inspectors? Nope. Are we currently at a State of War with Syria and operating under a "cease fire agreement" that has been continuously violated?


This would be less funny if any of these were given as the reason to go in. But they weren't, so it's hilarious.
 
2013-09-06 04:02:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?


Libya was a different situation and you know it.
 
2013-09-06 04:10:26 PM  

thurstonxhowell: cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?

Libya was a different situation and you know it.


Absolutely true. Gaddafi was merely threatening to massacre civilians, he hadn't actually started doing it yet.
 
2013-09-06 04:26:59 PM  
Now, hold it.  Let's give the GOP a fair shake, here.  According to Senator Rubio (R-For Sale by Owner), if Obama had just sent Assad a very sternly-worded letter two years ago, the United States would not be in this quandary.
 
2013-09-06 04:28:20 PM  

CanisNoir: Not to mention, Bush went to Congress and got their approval. Would I have preferred Congress actually DECLARE WAR, of course.


Isn't this what Obama is trying to do now while also trying to get an international coalition together?
 
2013-09-06 04:42:05 PM  

propasaurus: Who was it yesterday -- oh, yeah, Ros-Lehtinen -- who said Obama was weak for asking Congressional approval for air strikes, but we should approve air strikes just like St. Ronnie did.


What country does she represent?
 
2013-09-06 04:46:15 PM  

thurstonxhowell: cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?

Libya was a different situation and you know it.


Sure, but it's a much better comparison than Iraq.
 
2013-09-06 04:58:49 PM  

cptjeff: thurstonxhowell: cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?

Libya was a different situation and you know it.

Sure, but it's a much better comparison than Iraq.


Nono, this is *exactly* like Iraq, and is, in no way, anything like Libya.

/Sarcasm
 
2013-09-06 04:59:25 PM  
I'm pretty sure that everyone who is talking about this at this moment in time is either lying, or thinks too highly of their abilities to assess complex international military/diplomacy issues.

That includes our military and our diplomats, the president, all of congress, the press, Russia, Israel, Assad, the rebels, Lebanon...

Everything that everyone says raises alarm bells and red flags like crazy.  Boots on the ground is a meaningless phrase in the context of the new era of drone warfare.  If we get involved in a protracted conflict of some kind, it might not even BE WITH SYRIA.  And wherever it might be, it would be only 3 years before a new president was in charge of it, completely changing our strategy.  So any discussion of hypotheticals is moot.  The list of players is absolutely staggering, and the politics domestically don't even remotely jibe with the politics internationally.

This is a no win situation for everybody.  Which might be what Assad was going for.
 
2013-09-06 05:09:42 PM  

vygramul: cptjeff: thurstonxhowell: cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?

Libya was a different situation and you know it.

Sure, but it's a much better comparison than Iraq.

Nono, this is *exactly* like Iraq, and is, in no way, anything like Libya.


Libya? I know that place. They have a city there named....Ben.... Ben-something.
 
2013-09-06 05:09:51 PM  
There is no rational reason to Bomb Syria, since they have not threatened us or an ally in any way.

If the world would like some kind of punishment, let the UN or World delve some out.

As for the US involvement,   I see this as I saw the US involved in Lebanon in 1983.    A lose-lose situation where we should never have been.    We lost hundreds of men for nothing....
Lebanon, at the time was ocupied/controlled by Syria (25+ years) and they downed two US aircraft.   We ended up having to negotiate the release of POW and dead soldiers etc....

We spent the money,  and our lives,  and people have long forgotten Lebanon.    It was not worth it.

Stay out US.     You just end up paying through the nose for everything that the rest of the world won't.

As for Obama,   I could care less.     If he stepped down today and was replaced by Hillary, Condi, John Wayne,  Bill Cosby,  MLK,  Rand Paul,  John Boehner .... it would not matter.

It still would be wrong to kill Syrians,  to interfere in their internal civil war,  to kill bystanders and kids .... when we have no reason to do so.    It is wrong.
 
2013-09-06 05:12:44 PM  

netcentric: There is no rational reason to Bomb Syria, since they have not threatened us or an ally in any way.

If the world would like some kind of punishment, let the UN or World delve some out.

As for the US involvement,   I see this as I saw the US involved in Lebanon in 1983.    A lose-lose situation where we should never have been.    We lost hundreds of men for nothing....
Lebanon, at the time was ocupied/controlled by Syria (25+ years) and they downed two US aircraft.   We ended up having to negotiate the release of POW and dead soldiers etc....

We spent the money,  and our lives,  and people have long forgotten Lebanon.    It was not worth it.

Stay out US.     You just end up paying through the nose for everything that the rest of the world won't.

As for Obama,   I could care less.     If he stepped down today and was replaced by Hillary, Condi, John Wayne,  Bill Cosby,  MLK,  Rand Paul,  John Boehner .... it would not matter.

It still would be wrong to kill Syrians,  to interfere in their internal civil war,  to kill bystanders and kids .... when we have no reason to do so.    It is wrong.


The benefit of removing another mideast dictator and reducing the people he killed outweighs any civilian casualty we inflict.

Plus the drones are cheap by comparison and I won't be accused of sending 19 year olds to their deaths over my political paranoia.
 
2013-09-06 05:33:50 PM  

WippitGuud: vygramul: cptjeff: thurstonxhowell: cameroncrazy1984: thurstonxhowell: he answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..

Libya. How many boots on the ground do we have there now?

Libya was a different situation and you know it.

Sure, but it's a much better comparison than Iraq.

Nono, this is *exactly* like Iraq, and is, in no way, anything like Libya.

Libya? I know that place. They have a city there named....Ben.... Ben-something.


True, and we lost more people there than in Iraq. So you have a great point. Just wonderful.
 
2013-09-06 05:35:05 PM  

paygun: This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?


Obama didn't campaign as an isolationist.  His policy has been very realpolitik: sensible use of military resources to achieve definable results.
 
2013-09-06 05:38:23 PM  
It's wrong to interfere in another country's Civil War.
 
2013-09-06 05:40:58 PM  

super_grass: The benefit of removing another mideast dictator and reducing the people he killed outweighs any civilian casualty we inflict.


Well, gee...do I go for the blatant cheap shot, or for a bit of tasteful subtlety? I'm really torn.
/clicky-pops, SFW
 
2013-09-06 05:54:22 PM  

Kittypie070: super_grass: The benefit of removing another mideast dictator and reducing the people he killed outweighs any civilian casualty we inflict.

Well, gee...do I go for the blatant cheap shot, or for a bit of tasteful subtlety? I'm really torn.
/clicky-pops, SFW


Ha ha! "No wars." That's a good one.
 
2013-09-06 06:01:18 PM  

Somacandra: Aristocles: Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.

Subject is a  Neo-Liberal (a.k.a "Clintonian"). Similar views on internationalism stemming from a common deonominator in Wilsonian Idealism.


...and thats how I was no longer frustrated reading the thread.
 
2013-09-06 06:23:41 PM  
lilbjorn:

Exactly. And really, if we're gonna do something about a despot gassing his own people, it should be straight-up invasion. War is not a half-measure.
 
2013-09-06 06:41:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


This. As I've said before: Kudos, Obama. MAXIMUM TROLLING.
 
2013-09-06 06:49:46 PM  

CanisNoir: While honestly the best part about this whole thing is that it has split both parties and brought us a truly bi-partisan debate. Sure there are disingenuous Republican party loyalists who change their mind because Obama is for it, just like there were disingenuous Democrats who were for regime change in Iraq when Clinton was for it, but against it because Bush was for it. Again, the Party First attitude runs through both parties not just one.


Let's take a look at the votes, shall we?

United States House of Representatives

Republican Yes - 215 No - 6
Democratic Yes - 82 No - 126

United States Senate

Republican Yes - 48 No - 1
Democratic Yes - 29 No - 21


But please, continue to tells us both sides are the same.
 
2013-09-06 07:32:17 PM  

Apik0r0s: propasaurus: Who was it yesterday -- oh, yeah, Ros-Lehtinen -- who said Obama was weak for asking Congressional approval for air strikes, but we should approve air strikes just like St. Ronnie did.

What country does she represent?


I wonder what you think you're saying?
 
2013-09-06 08:03:34 PM  

fusillade762: But please, continue to tells us both sides are the same.


Both sides are not the same, but this particular issue has created factions with similar interests that wouldn't usually move together.
 
2013-09-06 08:23:57 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: "There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.


Yes.

Some of us asked them before Iraq and got yelled at for daring to question the President in a time of war.
 
2013-09-06 09:23:16 PM  
Right or wrong, first he should be required to locate Syria on a map.  My guess is that he would have trouble.
 
2013-09-06 09:30:41 PM  
 
2013-09-07 02:34:24 AM  
I find this all hilarious because as a centrist (Read: Not a democrat or a republican, because both sides have their batshiat crazy moments), I stand to gain a lot from my investments regardless of the outcome of this decision.
 
2013-09-07 06:06:35 AM  

Wyldfire: I find this all hilarious because as a centrist (Read: Not a democrat or a republican, because both sides have their batshiat crazy moments), I stand to gain a lot from my investments regardless of the outcome of this decision.


* fart noises *
 
2013-09-07 08:10:54 AM  
are people really upset that this man is in office?
 
2013-09-07 08:12:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MrBallou: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

Doesn't hurt their brains at all. At this point, they've become completely fixated on opposing him. Any damage it does to any of their other causes is acceptable collateral damage.

Unless and until it starts losing them elections. Which, in the house may take a few cycles but in the Senate they'll probably lose seats in 2014 because you can't gerrymander entire states.


They'll start counting Senator votes by Congressional district, just like they're planning to do with EVs.
 
2013-09-07 10:53:08 AM  

Wyldfire: as a centrist (Read: Not a democrat or a republican, because both sides have their batshiat crazy moments)


I find this impossible to read without imagining you wafting the smell of your own farts into your nostrils.
 
2013-09-07 01:24:19 PM  

MBrady: FlashHarry: president obama: breathing air is a good thing.
GOP rep: *holds breath*

so the guy changed his mind.  big deal.

go find a real story


wow - i remember when you guys called that a "flip-flop."

IOKIYAR, i guess...
 
Displayed 93 of 93 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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