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  
•       •       •

2045 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 2:30 PM (43 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 03:20:36 PM

Smackledorfer: 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.


The reason France is moving forward is that they refused to put it to a vote in its legislature.  The war is extremely unpopular there, and their support is wavering.

Plus, France was extremely hawkish on Libya.  Their stance on intervention has changed in the last decade.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:03 PM
In the big picture, the jihadis amount to the cost of doing business -- the Saudis write them off as such and that's what's going on here. Nobody thinks the jihadis are the slightest threat to an installed regime in Syria.
This is about gas supply and marketing.

Arab gas to Europe at the expense of Putin's Russia.
Right now, Putin has Obama in check but it will be pretty easy for Obama to get out and get the upper hand. Putin's support of Assad is historical now that the Saudis, Israelis, and their primary lapdog, the USA, all agree the Assad will have to go.

The trouble is that Assad was Putin's last line of defense against losing the European gas monopoly.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:26 PM
We all get that this has already been decided, right? It's pretty thickly in the air that this is going to happen whether the American people want it to or not. A very 2003 vibe. They're just waiting for all of us to settle down and get used to that fact.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:30 PM
I think that before we do anything, we should take in some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees- give them asylum or help other countries like Jordan and Lebanon take care of them.
 
2013-09-06 03:22:44 PM

The Bestest: 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.


Given Assad's momentum in the war, if we do nothing the rebels will likely be defeated and the situation will change from a full on civil war to a smaller scale insurgency.
 
2013-09-06 03:24:54 PM

imontheinternet: The Bestest: 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.

Given Assad's momentum in the war, if we do nothing the rebels will likely be defeated and the situation will change from a full on civil war to a smaller scale insurgency.

controlled massacre.
 
2013-09-06 03:24:54 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Armchair foreign policy at its finest.

I'd rather raise concerns than dismissively and arrogantly ignore history out of blind faith in authority.


You'd also make unfounded accusations against someone if they don't respect your "valuable" input, apparently.

Psylence: But go ahead. Our military magic show will only kill evildoers!


Yeah because that's what I'm saying. Nothing reasonable like your "we have no possible way to differentiate buildings, arms, or anything else" stance.
 
2013-09-06 03:25:21 PM

Psylence: 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!


I heard a story on here the other day about Kosovo.  NATO targeted tanks in bombings, destroyed the, and halted the attack.  As it turns out, they had been hitting cars altered to look like tanks to the targeting systems.  As soon as the bombings ended, the real tanks were brought out from storage and put back into service.
 
2013-09-06 03:25:24 PM

LasersHurt: 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.


You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens
 
2013-09-06 03:25:29 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.


Hey, if you can level a quarterback every time he leaves the pocket, he'll stop doing that. It doesn't mean you've tipped the balance in favor of your team to win the game.
 
2013-09-06 03:25:58 PM

imontheinternet: Smackledorfer: 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.

The reason France is moving forward is that they refused to put it to a vote in its legislature.  The war is extremely unpopular there, and their support is wavering.

Plus, France was extremely hawkish on Libya.  Their stance on intervention has changed in the last decade.


Is it their overall stance though, or the fact that egypt, libya, or syria aren't comparable actions or reasons for action as Iraq?

My point is we as a country were stupid as shiat to go after Iraq, and are now overreacting back the other way (which again I am still against action here, but am just speaking to public sentiment).

We as a nation have been pretty farking stupid about middle eastern intervention over the years. If we don't go in now, it may simply be the right move for the wrong reasons.
 
2013-09-06 03:26:51 PM
So we want to bomb Assad because someone thinks he used poison gas against his own people. No one has proven to me that Assad did this and not the rebels fighting to over throw the government. But even if he did, it is still a Civil War that we have no business meddling in.  All that being said, I find it interesting that the State Dept Web Site giving a travel advisory to Syria depict the rebels this way:

"Syrian opposition groups have utilized car bombs, improvised explosive device/indirect-fire attacks, sniper fire, and kidnappings throughout the country. Foreign combatants - including Iranian regime elements, Hizballah fighters, Islamic extremists, and al Qaida-linked elements - are participating in hostilities" http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1035.html

But I guess if BOB sticks his foot in his mouth with his red-line comment which isn't his according to him but he did say, I guess we have no choice to go to war.
 
2013-09-06 03:27:57 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.


In recent times the protocol has been interpreted to cover internal conflicts as well international ones. In 1995 an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that "there had undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of chemical weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts." In 2005 the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that customary international law includes a ban on the use of chemical weapons in internal as well as international conflicts.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

International law requires a response. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who either have something to gain by ignoring the situation and a lot of people who have no problem with brown people killing each other.
 
2013-09-06 03:28:24 PM

coeyagi: 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.


All you have to do to counter that is say that's it's possible that Barak Obama may not be an infallible living god that walks among us.
 
2013-09-06 03:28:38 PM

netcentric: LasersHurt: 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.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens


"The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis."
 
2013-09-06 03:28:54 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.


You can't. This is what I've been saying all along. This proposed action is giving aid and assistance to the rebels who, despite all of Kerry.s bloviated blustering blathering to the contrary, are tied to Al Qaeda. This alone is enough to not do anything at all to help them. There are actual laws against helping them in any way starting with the Patriot Act and ending at the constitution itself.

Then there's the tiny little detail of us committing an act of war without any treaty ties or UN approval to justify it. What happens when Syria decides to declare war on us? They would be completely within their rights to do that. Then every act of what we now call terrorism would become legitimate acts committed in a war setting if they are behind them under the guise of sabotage, a legal tactic of warfare.

There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

All for what? To send a message that may or may not have any effect in a civil war that has no good guys in it as far as we are concerned. Everyone there hates us and would slit our throats in our sleep if given the chance. This whole misadventure is poisonous at several levels and the people advocating it are either complete and utter fools or are looking for some kickbacks somewhere down the line.
 
2013-09-06 03:29:16 PM

LasersHurt: You'd also make unfounded accusations against someone if they don't respect your "valuable" input, apparently.


If you ever tried to make a point, I'd refute it.  All you do is attack the points that others make by acting condescending and smug, hoping people will mistake that for intelligence.
 
2013-09-06 03:29:36 PM

Smackledorfer: be the right move for the wrong reasons.


maybe i'm just the neighborhood cynic, but that's typically the best i even try to hope for.
 
2013-09-06 03:30:26 PM

paygun: coeyagi: 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.

All you have to do to counter that is say that's it's possible that Barak Obama may not be an infallible living god that walks among us.


And you wouldn't get one Farker to disagree there.

//unless, of course, a certain narrative exists in certain minds, then of course, it's laughable to think that I don't fap to Obama every day.
 
2013-09-06 03:30:38 PM
This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.
 
2013-09-06 03:31:30 PM
a military strike that neutralizes Assads NBC weapons without giving advantage to the rebels? Only thing that can do that is orbiting a B2 with a nuclear payload aimed at Assad with orders to execute if anything goes down.
 
2013-09-06 03:31:36 PM

vernonFL: I think that before we do anything, we should take in some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees- give them asylum or help other countries like Jordan and Lebanon take care of them.


That's not BOB's style, man. BOB would rather let hundreds of thousands of Syrians die before even considering taking action.
 
2013-09-06 03:32:10 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: You'd also make unfounded accusations against someone if they don't respect your "valuable" input, apparently.

If you ever tried to make a point, I'd refute it.  All you do is attack the points that others make by acting condescending and smug, hoping people will mistake that for intelligence.


I posted because your "points" were ridiculous and unfounded. You postulate that extremists will take over. I don't think you have any support for that.

I'm not trying to make a point other than that I think yours is very wrong, and not founded on any solid evidence.

I'm sorry you think I'm being smug. I'll try harder not to insult your intelligence.
 
2013-09-06 03:33:58 PM
I don't understand how bombing Syria is supposed to hurt Assad.  I don't get the impression we're going to try to kill him personally, nor kill enough of his troops to make him lose the war.  Given that he just gassed a bunch of people, he's probably not a nice guy, so he's not going to sit up late at night grieving for whoever we wind up killing.
 
2013-09-06 03:34:04 PM

Smackledorfer: My point is we as a country were stupid as shiat to go after Iraq, and are now overreacting back the other way (which again I am still against action here, but am just speaking to public sentiment).


I think you're right that people, including me, are war weary and maybe overly skeptical at times, but when it comes to war, I'd much rather err on the side of caution than charging in with unclear clear goals, little knowledge of the groups we're supporting, and no clear picture of what the endgame looks like.
 
2013-09-06 03:35:34 PM
Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.
 
2013-09-06 03:36:31 PM
Why would we want to support the rebels?

All parties in this cluster fark are horrible pieces of shiat  and we have no clear proof of who did what.  I belive our great Community Organizer missed the  opportunity  for a limited strike and now has turned this into an unwinable debate.

Much like everything else he has touched.
 
2013-09-06 03:36:38 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.


It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.
 
2013-09-06 03:37:06 PM

coeyagi: And you wouldn't get one Farker to disagree there.


Well no, because they know they can't defend that.  So don't dare say Obama is the messiah, but also don't dare say something that implies that he's not.

I think the truth is that he's somewhere between comic book villain and messiah.  I know that's a pretty controversial thing to say here but most people here are lunatics so no big loss.
 
2013-09-06 03:37:18 PM

qorkfiend: Our stated objective is not "end the civil war", which is clearly what you are implying.


No but, in the words of John Kerry while speaking the the senate foreign relations committee it would be a "Collateral result". In other words it's a result that they know will happen thus they actually are picking sides in a civil war. Normally I'd be at least a little okay with that as there is usually one side that is at least marginally better than the other. Not in this case. Both sides are equally bad for different reasons.
 
2013-09-06 03:38:32 PM

GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.


"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.
 
2013-09-06 03:39:03 PM

ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.


No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.
 
2013-09-06 03:39:10 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.


The president says he has proof and the war will be quick and decisive.  His war hero SoS concurs.  Our commitment and casualties will be limited.  We don't have time for UN weapons inspectors.  The war will pay for itself.
 
2013-09-06 03:40:15 PM

vernonFL: I think that before we do anything, we should take in some of the hundreds of thousands of refugees- give them asylum or help other countries like Jordan and Lebanon take care of them.


We're already doing that, according to those helping the refugees, America and it's people are the largest contributors and have helped more than any other country. Like any other nation, we put our national interests first and act counter to our espoused founding beliefs upon occasion, but we are consistently at the top of the list when it comes to humanitarian contributions to those nations in need, in times of need.That is often over looked when people get on their "Murica is Bad!" soap box.
 
2013-09-06 03:40:42 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."


Ok, i'll amend my previous statement...  Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing specifically with chemical weapons
 
2013-09-06 03:41:01 PM

vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.


And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...
 
2013-09-06 03:41:16 PM

Headso: 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."

Ok, i'll amend my previous statement...  Not to mention all the people we end up killing to...uh...stop the killing specifically with chemical weapons


So it's the obtuse thing
 
2013-09-06 03:41:28 PM

netcentric: LasersHurt: 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.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens


Yes, because enlisted privates have so much access to what goes on at the JCoS
 
2013-09-06 03:41:32 PM

LasersHurt: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.

"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.


Well it is wrong now.
Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and he'll have it, so JUMP American lapdog, JUMP!
 
2013-09-06 03:42:18 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: LasersHurt: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.

"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.

Well it is wrong now.
Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and he'll have it, so JUMP American lapdog, JUMP!


This is the second-laziest.

"Let's make a list of anyone who might benefit... then accuse this of being a plot on their behalf!"
 
2013-09-06 03:42:52 PM

DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...


So BOB has officially endorsed al-Q and wants to send our Soldiers to help against the will of the American people?

Maybe the big announcement can be made next Wed!
 
2013-09-06 03:43:06 PM

Smackledorfer: 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.


Iraq owed them a ton of money.  That's why they didn't want to do anything.

And if chemical weapon use is a redlilne now, why wasn't it then?

/you gotta be deep in the tank for this administration to advocate for the pitiful mess we are about to create.
 
2013-09-06 03:43:07 PM

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: netcentric: LasersHurt: 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.

You have never been in the military..... have you

If you ever had been... you would know what happens

Yes, because enlisted privates have so much access to what goes on at the JCoS


You're joking, right?
The Pentagon doesn't want this pile of crap.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-sup po rt-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_stor y.html
 
2013-09-06 03:43:36 PM

paygun: coeyagi: And you wouldn't get one Farker to disagree there.

Well no, because they know they can't defend that.  So don't dare say Obama is the messiah, but also don't dare say something that implies that he's not.

I think the truth is that he's somewhere between comic book villain and messiah.  I know that's a pretty controversial thing to say here but most people here are lunatics so no big loss.


Facepalm.  Whatever gets your ire up, pal.  I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status.  No, wait, don't bother.  I know your answer: just read around Fark!  It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.

My answer: projection.  The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind.  Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?
 
2013-09-06 03:44:42 PM

DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...


... and install a democratic government when the war is over.
 
2013-09-06 03:45:16 PM

LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: LasersHurt: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: Yeah, like the "intelligence" that led us into Iraq.
Brilliant.

It will be a great relief to all those dead kids that this whole thing is made up.

"It was wrong in Iraq" = "It is wrong now"

This is the laziest possible way to think.

Well it is wrong now.
Prince Bandar wants his pipeline and he'll have it, so JUMP American lapdog, JUMP!

This is the second-laziest.

"Let's make a list of anyone who might benefit... then accuse this of being a plot on their behalf!"


This shiat is NOT about one chemical attack.
If you think that, you're hopelessly naive, a pretty typically adolescent intellect.
 
2013-09-06 03:45:25 PM

coeyagi: Facepalm.  Whatever gets your ire up, pal.  I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status.  No, wait, don't bother.  I know your answer: just read around Fark!  It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.

My answer: projection.  The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind.  Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?


That's an awful lot of typing when you could have just pecked out "but Bush."
 
2013-09-06 03:46:29 PM

imontheinternet: ... and install a democratic government when the war is over


Nation building is okay when we do it!
 
2013-09-06 03:47:09 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: This shiat is NOT about one chemical attack.
If you think that, you're hopelessly naive, a pretty typically adolescent intellect.


"But it IS about whatever I say it's about, whether or not I offer any evidence. This is how I excercise my srs adult intellect (Serious adults namecall people who disagree with their unsupported assertions.)"
 
2013-09-06 03:47:19 PM

paygun: coeyagi: Facepalm.  Whatever gets your ire up, pal.  I guess it would be too much to ask to give proof of his supposed messiah status.  No, wait, don't bother.  I know your answer: just read around Fark!  It's everywhere! Ok, thanks for wasting our time.

My answer: projection.  The amount of Bush defending is somehow exactly how the Libs are playing Obama, in your mind.  Couldn't it just be, perhaps / maybe, that while we don't support everything or maybe even a lot of what he does, the other side - the theofascist, chickenhawk hypocrites of the right - are so god damn frightening that perhaps we give him a little more benefit of the doubt since he's not an obviously craven, delusional self-righteous f*ckface like his Republican counterparts?

That's an awful lot of typing when you could have just pecked out "but Bush."


I'll take that as "I agree with you because I couldn't actual mount a defense against it and went with the tried and derpy true 'But Bush' accusation, which actually is a viable defense because it explains a lot of butthurt and behavior by the GOP since 2009."

And it's greatly appreciated (smiles and blushing)!  Thanks!
 
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