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.

(Salon)   John Kerry is totally blowing his sales pitch by trying to be all things to all people, and making ridiculous promises about what our military can do that no one in their right mind believes   (salon.com) divider line 294
    More: Obvious, global powers, Delaware Democratic Party, opposition to the Vietnam War, sanities, intelligence assessment, chemical weapons, Congressional Black Caucus, foreign ministers  
•       •       •

2048 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 2:30 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-06 01:20:57 PM
For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.
 
2013-09-06 02:02:38 PM
You know who else made ridiculous promises that the military couldn't keep?
 
2013-09-06 02:13:59 PM
Now if Kerry was using the "Munich moment," as a symbol of as an action the US could take similar to Israel's Operation wrath of God(that was a result of actions in the Munich Olympics by black September that killed Israeli citizens) and show the Americans harmed by Assad then he would be on to something the US may approve. The problem is that no Americans have been harmed by doing nothing and that will change if a President's vanity causes the US to go to war with Syria. No national interest has even be expressed or explained for interfering in an internal conflictother than the generic it is bad for the world to kill people a certain way
 
2013-09-06 02:31:44 PM
Now we know "Why the long face?"
 
2013-09-06 02:35:33 PM
Hitler Discovers John Kerry Has Been Lying About Syria:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
 
2013-09-06 02:36:28 PM

DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.


So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.
 
2013-09-06 02:38:52 PM
The Secretary of State sitting down with baby-faced Chris Hayes seems like a desperate move to me. Scared of Maddow or just after the earlier time slot?
 
2013-09-06 02:39:12 PM

LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.


The part where we somehow manage to do so much damage to Assad that he won't ever think about using weapons he thinks he needs to win, but somehow at the exact same time not do enough damage to reduce his odds of actually winning.
 
2013-09-06 02:39:47 PM
Well let's be fair to Kerry here, he's trying to sell ice to eskimos. It isn't like this is some great idea and his pitch is so bad that it makes this great idea appear to be an idiotic one.
 
2013-09-06 02:40:57 PM

DamnYankees: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

The part where we somehow manage to do so much damage to Assad that he won't ever think about using weapons he thinks he needs to win, but somehow at the exact same time not do enough damage to reduce his odds of actually winning.


I don't think either you or I know enough about the total of Assad's capabilities to properly make that call.
 
2013-09-06 02:41:56 PM

LasersHurt: I don't think either you or I know enough about the total of Assad's capabilities to properly make that call.


I know a claim of hubristic bullshiat when I hear it.
 
2013-09-06 02:42:37 PM
I guess Kerry is mad that Assad did not pic up the tab when they had dinner with their wives. If you fall for what they say about Syria and think we need to go to war to help Al Qaeda over throw Assad I have a bridge to sell to you, even comes with a on ramp to hope and change.
 
2013-09-06 02:45:23 PM

LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.


Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.
 
2013-09-06 02:45:40 PM

pmdgrwr: we need to go to war to help Al Qaeda over throw Assad


I'll take "the most incorrect view on the matter" for $1000, Alex.
 
2013-09-06 02:45:54 PM
I mean come on, it's not like Kerry has a history of failing to close a sale when he had a product people should have been interested i--Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
2013-09-06 02:47:04 PM

Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.


Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing
 
2013-09-06 02:49:23 PM
So he embellished it before he ends up retracting it?

/Not a Kerry hater, but Iraq has farked all US credibility for years to come
 
2013-09-06 02:50:15 PM

Headso: Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.

Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing


Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".
 
2013-09-06 02:50:22 PM
I'm not sure who, but dammit somebody is gonna greet us as liberators.  I swear.
 
2013-09-06 02:51:55 PM
Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?
 
2013-09-06 02:51:57 PM

eurotrader: The problem is that no Americans have been harmed by doing nothing and that will change if a President's vanity causes the US to go to war with Syria. No national interest has even be expressed or explained for interfering in an internal conflictother than the generic it is bad for the world to kill people a certain way


This has nothing to do with any vanity and inaction would have long term detrimental effects to the US's global standing and interests, as well as further endangering troops in any future operations.
 
2013-09-06 02:52:25 PM

paygun: I'm not sure who, but dammit somebody is gonna greet us as liberators.  I swear.


Haliburton will
 
2013-09-06 02:52:47 PM
Pet theory: Hillary stepped down as SoS partially because she was going to run for president and partially because they* knew this mess with Syria was coming and they didn't want to have her name dragged through the muck because of it. Kerry is a much better fall guy.

*"They" potentially meaning Hillary's campaign people, the Obama administration, and/or the DNC.
 
2013-09-06 02:52:48 PM

vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week


I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.
 
2013-09-06 02:54:10 PM

qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".


As callous as this sounds, this has absolutely nothing to do with "stopping the killing". Photos of dead babies are great for PR, but the primary purpose of all this is maintaining convention.
 
2013-09-06 02:54:19 PM

LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.


We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.
 
2013-09-06 02:55:18 PM

qorkfiend: Headso: Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.

Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing

Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".


what do chemical weapons do? kill people?
 
2013-09-06 02:56:00 PM

DamnYankees: For me this is the key quote:

"[T]he policy [Kerry] is peddling is so exquisitely poised as to be untenable: a military strike that's effective enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, but not enough to tip the balance of power to the rebels "

I mean, this is farking absurd, hubristic to the max. Anyone who believes we can actually do this...I don't know what to say.


Why is that impossible?

If I went around kicking puppies and you punched me in the face pretty good, I would probably stop kicking dogs.  It would not, should that be your only punch, be even remotely enough damage to my puppy-kicking that I could no longer do it.  It isn't the one punch that stops me, it is the knowledge that I will be punched again and again, eventually resulting in me choosing between kicking ten more puppies and me keeping a semblance of facial structure.

I haven't paid enough attention to Syria to know whether the rebels have a chance at winning or not, but unless they are right on the brink there should be enough leeway to both send the message "cut that shiat out" while still leaving Assad with enough strength to win without chemical weapons.

Otoh, if he cannot win without using chemical weapons, nothing short of overthrowing him would stop him.

He may not think he needs chemical weapons to win.  He may have thought he was calling our bluff.  Hell, I'm sure in hindsight saddam wouldn't have even considered the slightest impediment to inspectors searching for WMDs.  Sometimes the bad guys win with these bluffs, sometimes they don't.  There is also the possibility he didn't even order the attack.  We have a pretty damn good military and people do stupid shiat sometimes.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a shiat call like that in the Syrian military.

There is also the message that the attack sends, which is that if you do it again we will do it again, which would ultimately result in his downfall (and our subsequently looking much better for overthrowing him than if we did so and he never used chemical weapons at all).

DamnYankees: I know a claim of hubristic bullshiat when I hear it.


Can you give us a good breakdown of the evidence that leads you to believe that Assad is that close to the brink of defeat? Troop comparisons, arms numbers, supplies?  Or are you just going off your gut instinct?
 
2013-09-06 02:57:09 PM

Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?


Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."

vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.


One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.
 
2013-09-06 02:58:32 PM

Headso: what do chemical weapons do? kill people?


Bad dog. Bad.

You know what you are doing.  Stop.  The deliberate obtuseness and dishonesty is ridiculous in these syria threads.
 
2013-09-06 02:58:40 PM

vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?


or a big ass pile of VX nerve agent, spreading it far and wide and killing thousands of people
 
2013-09-06 02:59:15 PM

Headso: qorkfiend: Headso: Name_Omitted: LasersHurt: So you must believe that Assad is on the tip of toppling right now, then, and the slightest breeze will end him? Or... I'm not sure what part you think is something that we can't do.

Let me try.

How about, if we get involved with a civil war, it should pick a side, and bring enough forces to end it.  Getting involved, and being careful to not change the balance of power, is prolong the war, and to what end?  So people die of being shelled conventionally instead of with gas?  They are still just as dead.

Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing

Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?


Sure, if you want to argue semantics.

Our stated objective is not "end the civil war", which is clearly what you are implying.
 
2013-09-06 03:00:42 PM
All he needs to do is claim we need to go to war to cover up the WMDs that came from Iraq.  The left will eat that up.
 
2013-09-06 03:06:35 PM

LasersHurt: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.


HAHA.... Oh man.
 
2013-09-06 03:08:04 PM
no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.
 
2013-09-06 03:08:33 PM

lockers: LasersHurt: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.

HAHA.... Oh man.


Let me guess, you think I am somehow implying that there are not accidents and innocents killed by American warmaking? Because your reading comprehension is nil?
 
2013-09-06 03:09:03 PM
Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.
 
2013-09-06 03:09:57 PM

imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.


Armchair foreign policy at its finest.
 
2013-09-06 03:10:10 PM

LasersHurt: lockers: LasersHurt: vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.

HAHA.... Oh man.

Let me guess, you think I am somehow implying that there are not accidents and innocents killed by American warmaking? Because your reading comprehension is nil?


Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.
 
2013-09-06 03:10:36 PM

kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.


Well, I wouldn't say 'no one'.

But my hope is Obama leaves it to the legislature, and then they vote it down and he doesn't take action.
 
2013-09-06 03:11:04 PM

CynicalLA: Well, our intelligence has been pretty horrid lately.  Hopefully our source isn't called curveball this time.


I'm hoping that if we learned NOTHING else from recent history it's to be damned sure of our intelligence before doing anything, and to have a very specific plan.
 
2013-09-06 03:11:11 PM

imontheinternet: This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.


Yeah but come on, think about the alternative.  If we don't do this it may make Obama look bad for a few days.
 
2013-09-06 03:12:26 PM

imontheinternet: If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.


Otoh, look at France.  They favor action now, but were smartly against going into Iraq.  They didn't burn through all of their 'try and do some good enforcing international laws' political capital like Britain and the U.S.
 
2013-09-06 03:13:29 PM
So he's going with the GOP talking-point of our soldiers being the greatest, bestest, most invinciblest fighting force in the known universe and how DARE anyone even SUGGEST that they have any kind of limitations (or need for federal benefits...) of ANY kind?!
 
2013-09-06 03:15:14 PM

paygun: imontheinternet: This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

Yeah but come on, think about the alternative.  If we don't do this it may make Obama look bad for a few days.


That certainly is at the forefront of my mind.  I mean, I've been told millions of times on Fark that I will do anything to defend my supposed messiah.
 
2013-09-06 03:15:17 PM

LasersHurt: imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.

Armchair foreign policy at its finest.


I'd rather raise concerns than dismissively and arrogantly ignore history out of blind faith in authority.
 
2013-09-06 03:16:18 PM
Lerch will do exactly as Prince Bandar wishes.
Prince Bandar wants Assad gone, because Assad is standing in the way of an Arab gas pipeline to supply Europe.
As anyone could imagine, Putin doesn't like this a bit because Russia has a monopoly on selling gas to Europe.
If Arab gas goes to Europe, the Russian economy will take a massive haircut.

So there it is in three easy pieces.
Prince Bandar gets what he wants or he gets John Kerry's balls in a jar on his desk in Mecca.
 
2013-09-06 03:17:33 PM

kindms: no one wants to get in this fight. NO ONE

Not sure why the powers that be seem to intent on ignoring the will of almost every citizen in this nation

They can't even sell it because their hearts aren't in it. The BS can be smelled a mile away

This basically comes down to the POTUS issued an ultimatum, doing nothing makes us seem wishy washy and the only way to save face is to actual inflict some death on people.


AIPAC is people, my friend.
 
2013-09-06 03:18:37 PM

imontheinternet: Assad is winning the war right now.  Decisively.  Tipping the war in favor of the rebels is a massive commitment, and lobbing a few bombs and walking away won't work, because national pride won't let "the bad guy" beat us.

This will very likely turn into a full commitment to side with rebel groups, the strongest of which are radical jihadists, to topple a dictatorship we don't like and replace it with an unknown interim government until elections are held, which may very well put the jihadists in power.

If this was 2002, I could excuse someone being naive about the risks involved here, but it isn't and I can't.


Mission creep is certainly a concern of mine as well, but even then the cost of inaction still outweighs it in my mind.
 
2013-09-06 03:19:29 PM

LasersHurt: Headso: qorkfiend: Your first mistake is assuming that we're doing this to "stop the killing" instead of "removing capability to use chemical weapons".

what do chemical weapons do? kill people?

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Or do you actually not get the difference between "stopping the use of chemical weapons" and "stopping all killing entirely."

vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

One error once? Well you sold me, we just target hospitals all the time.


Yea... just once. Wow.

Tell me, how can you tell what specific buildings contain chem. weapons? What do chemical weapons look like? Do the launchers look just like every other projectile weapon out there? (hint: Yes, yes they do)

But go ahead. Our military magic show will only kill evildoers!
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report