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 93
    More: Obvious, GOP, President Obama, Mike Coffman, wars, chemical warfares, Assad regime  
•       •       •

1999 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 43 of 93 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