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)   Your Monday Morning schadenfreude: Watching McCain try and sell Syria to Arizonians   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 122
    More: Amusing, Sen. John McCain  
•       •       •

1499 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 11:43 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-09 10:08:34 AM
www.thewho.info
 
2013-09-09 10:26:00 AM
I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..
 
2013-09-09 10:34:51 AM
Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.
 
2013-09-09 10:37:09 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..


According to Obama's statement, it's America's duty to intervene when bad things happen.  You can't sit idly by while another country does bad things.

The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary.
 
2013-09-09 10:40:13 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..


It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.
 
2013-09-09 10:42:34 AM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.


Now THAT is some funny stuff right there.  Very droll.

Benevolent Misanthrope: The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary


That's droll squared.
 
2013-09-09 10:44:23 AM
I find it more disturbing that he's advocated a war, demanded that Obama do more than just "drop bombs" (him and Lindsey got him to promise to put troops in to teach the rebels) and came out saying that if Obama puts boots on the ground, it's impeachable.
 
2013-09-09 10:53:16 AM

somedude210: I find it more disturbing that he's advocated a war, demanded that Obama do more than just "drop bombs" (him and Lindsey got him to promise to put troops in to teach the rebels) and came out saying that if Obama puts boots on the ground, it's impeachable.


And then completely ignoring the slaughter happening in Darfur over the past decade, like it's not even happening.
 
2013-09-09 11:01:40 AM

somedude210: I find it more disturbing that he's advocated a war, demanded that Obama do more than just "drop bombs" (him and Lindsey got him to promise to put troops in to teach the rebels) and came out saying that if Obama puts boots on the ground, it's impeachable.


you do know that obama's a democrat, right?
 
2013-09-09 11:15:17 AM

Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Now THAT is some funny stuff right there.  Very droll.

Benevolent Misanthrope: The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary

That's droll squared.


I wasn't trying to be funny.  Don't you think a non-response, moves the yard stick forward on the acceptability on using chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-09 11:15:24 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria


The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.
 
2013-09-09 11:16:46 AM

Marcus Aurelius: And then completely ignoring the slaughter happening in Darfur over the past decade, like it's not even happening.


yeah I know. And I think it's deplorable that we, as well as the international community as a whole have ignored such things. That doesn't mean that we should ignore this one

FlashHarry: you do know that obama's a democrat, right?


doesn't matter. If he's advocating impeachment over terms he fought for, he should be brought up on charges too
 
2013-09-09 11:28:41 AM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


How naive are we that they are still trying to sell us wars on moral grounds and succeeding? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.
 
2013-09-09 11:32:54 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.

How naive are we that they are still trying to sell us wars on moral grounds and succeeding? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.


Know how I know you haven't checked ANY polls about popular opinion?
 
2013-09-09 11:36:29 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.


The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Or, to put it another way: do you give all your expendable income to charity? No? What about all those poor, hungry, etc. people you haven't helped? Clearly this means you shouldn't give any money to charity, because in the past, you didn't help everybody you could have.
 
2013-09-09 11:38:44 AM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Now THAT is some funny stuff right there.  Very droll.

Benevolent Misanthrope: The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary

That's droll squared.

I wasn't trying to be funny.  Don't you think a non-response, moves the yard stick forward on the acceptability on using chemical weapons.


If we were consistent in our approach then that might be the case.  History indicates otherwise.  We tend to find outrage in the places where politicians want to bomb/invade.
 
2013-09-09 11:40:20 AM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


Well we should have done something when Saddam was gassing the Kurds then.
 
2013-09-09 11:44:01 AM
I guess ' ..Bomb, bomb, bomb....bomb bomb Syria' just doesn't have a ring to it.
 
2013-09-09 11:45:09 AM
I think there is a fear we will ignore another Darfur.  Which is not to say I am for bombing Syria.
 
2013-09-09 11:47:19 AM
this is bush's legacy. act like we have to go to war because of chemical/nuclear weapons when we didn't, then when we SHOULD drop some bombs(but not go to war) we can't because people are tired of a decade of war.
 
2013-09-09 11:50:17 AM
Isn't tear gas a chemical weapon?

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-09 11:50:39 AM

Nadie_AZ: Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.


What? Make our country better instead of making other countries worse? What are you...some kinda socialist?
 
2013-09-09 11:51:28 AM

nmrsnr: UrukHaiGuyz: It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.

The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Or, to put it another way: do you give all your expendable income to charity? No? What about all those poor, hungry, etc. people you haven't helped? Clearly this means you shouldn't give any money to charity, because in the past, you didn't help everybody you could have.


That's missing the point entirely. We didn't get involved in those previous instances because morality has f*ck all to do with why we get involved. We've never been the moral crusaders we've pretended to be since WW2, and it's sad that these wars for profit are still being sold as "The Right Thing to Do TM."

Put another way: Is it really reasonable that the most good we can do in the world is by manufacturing expensive ways to kill people in foreign countries? Why not devote all those resources to feeding people/disaster relief/etc.? It has nothing to do with morals.
 
2013-09-09 11:52:30 AM

cubic_spleen: Nadie_AZ: Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.

What? Make our country better instead of making other countries worse? What are you...some kinda socialist?


Yeah, it's not like we can do both at the same time.  That's just crazy talk.
 
2013-09-09 11:53:16 AM

Nadie_AZ: Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.


If we keep everything shiatty, it will discourage people from attacking us.
 
2013-09-09 11:53:18 AM
Trying to sell Arizona on Syria?  Seems like quite a gamble.
 
2013-09-09 11:53:42 AM

nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.


Yeah, that's precisely what we need.
 
2013-09-09 11:55:32 AM

Sybarite: [www.thewho.info image 400x521]


Fool me once, shame on you!

Fool me twice ...

...

I'm not going to get fooled again!
 
2013-09-09 11:55:51 AM

GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.


As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.
 
2013-09-09 11:56:19 AM
Anti-war people yelling at McCain who were demanding more diplomacy:
Assad has been bombing his own people for nearly two years now.  What, exactly, do you think we should try diplomatically to stop this?

Specific actions and initiatives.  Not just a demand to "use diplomacy."

And it has been said that war is the ultimate act of diplomacy.
 
2013-09-09 11:56:53 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..


They cant tell us the reasons because that's classified. We could protest of course, but look what happened to OWS when they just asked a few questions about how the banks are run.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:14 AM
This is one of those times where it is a good thing that republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:52 AM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.


It gets harder to lie to the public as communications tech improves.
 
2013-09-09 11:58:31 AM
Well, we shouldn't be getting involved in regards to the rebels.  There are no reasonable 'good guys' over there in that bunch.  I fail to see why the GOP even wants us to get involved like this.

It's like....they NEED to put American lives in harm's way by putting soldiers on the ground in an occupied ME country.

NO.  This needs to be a repeat of Libya, not Iraq.
 
2013-09-09 12:01:21 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: That's missing the point entirely. We didn't get involved in those previous instances because morality has f*ck all to do with why we get involved. We've never been the moral crusaders we've pretended to be since WW2, and it's sad that these wars for profit are still being sold as "The Right Thing to Do TM."Put another way: Is it really reasonable that the most good we can do in the world is by manufacturing expensive ways to kill people in foreign countries? Why not devote all those resources to feeding people/disaster relief/etc.? It has nothing to do with morals.


Which is fine. I was saying that merely stating "we didn't stop those tragedies" isn't an argument as to why we shouldn't try and stop this one. Saying "we're particularly bad at it, and there are much better ways of accomplishing it than bombing" is a reasonable argument, and one I agree with, but if the options are "do nothing" or "do something ham fisted, but shows that what's going on isn't okay" I prefer ham fisted.

Marcus Aurelius: Well we should have done something when Saddam was gassing the Kurds then.


[quizzical dog.jpg]

I seem to recall a Gulf War.
 
2013-09-09 12:04:44 PM

Headso: This is one of those times where it is a good thing that republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.


Would Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein still be in favor of bombing, or are they just partisan hacks willing to spill blood to make their guy look good?
 
2013-09-09 12:08:47 PM

Nemo's Brother: Headso: This is one of those times where it is a good thing that republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.

Would Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein still be in favor of bombing, or are they just partisan hacks willing to spill blood to make their guy look good?


Of course they'd probably be against it, but they are also elected officials and partisan hackery is to be expected. The constituency with nothing to actually gain from their political loyalty are the all day suckers. That includes the farkers who think this is a great idea but who'd be saying hell no if this same thing happened in 2007.
 
2013-09-09 12:10:54 PM
I'm well past draft age and my kid is less than one year old.

Bomb Syria, Don't bomb Syria, it's along way from me.  I'm more worried about anti-government christian nuts blowing up another building here in Oklahoma.
 
2013-09-09 12:15:22 PM
nmrsnr: Which is fine. I was saying that merely stating "we didn't stop those tragedies" isn't an argument as to why we shouldn't try and stop this one. Saying "we're particularly bad at it, and there are much better ways of accomplishing it than bombing" is a reasonable argument, and one I agree with, but if the options are "do nothing" or "do something ham fisted, but shows that what's going on isn't okay" I prefer ham fisted.

Ham-fisted idiocy is why we have small dedicated cells of people around the world that want to kill Americans. If there is such great injustice that it requires military intervention, let the UN resolve to do it.

[quizzical dog.jpg]

I seem to recall a Gulf War.


The Gulf War was the result of Iraq invading the sovereign state of Kuwait, not Saddam gassing Kurds (which happened in the late '80's in the Iran-Iraq war). Learning history is important, or you'll just keep getting suckered.
 
2013-09-09 12:18:33 PM

Zombie Butler: Isn't tear gas a chemical weapon?


No, it's basically a condiment.

/I know.
 
2013-09-09 12:18:50 PM

Zombie Butler: Isn't tear gas a chemical weapon?

[t3.gstatic.com image 299x169]


Sure is!  Banned for use in war, but not for use on a nation's own population.
 
2013-09-09 12:19:00 PM

Infernalist: As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.


And what exactly does that involve?  Dropping a few random bombs in the desert?  Which horse are we backing?  The side that gasses their own people, or the side that is in bed with Al Queda?

Infernalist: You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII


And look where that has gotten us?
 
2013-09-09 12:19:08 PM
There are two thing I like about McCain.

(1) We both love ABBA.
(2) He knows how to do his job.

I am opposed to Syria action but he's only doing his job. If you do not want idiots who disagree with you yelling in your face do not volunteer to represent them. His job it to listen to the views of the people he represents and that is what he is doing, nothing more and nothing less. If the voters feel he is out of touch they can get rid of him.
 
2013-09-09 12:23:44 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

And what exactly does that involve?  Dropping a few random bombs in the desert?  Which horse are we backing?  The side that gasses their own people, or the side that is in bed with Al Queda?

Infernalist: You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII

And look where that has gotten us?


LOL lone superpower and leader of the free world?  OH NOES
 
2013-09-09 12:23:54 PM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


Which is probably one of the reasons Russia is vetoing the UN resolution.  If the US doesn't act, then Russia basically has carte blanche to gas the Chechens.
 
2013-09-09 12:26:25 PM

Rixel: nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.

Which is probably one of the reasons Russia is vetoing the UN resolution.  If the US doesn't act, then Russia basically has carte blanche to gas the Chechens.


New developments this morning, Syria is welcoming the idea of turning over their CWs to the UN and Assad is likely to put the blame for the attack on one of his generals.  This thing is close to being resolved.
 
2013-09-09 12:28:00 PM
ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!
 
2013-09-09 12:29:30 PM

FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!


"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."
 
2013-09-09 12:30:09 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.


Because bombing the shiat out of Saddam worked so well in stopping chemical weapons being used in the future?
 
2013-09-09 12:32:11 PM

worlddan: There are two thing I like about McCain.

(1) We both love ABBA.
(2) He knows how to do his job.

I am opposed to Syria action but he's only doing his job.


Is his job representing the people of Arizona or representing the stockholders of Raytheon?
 
2013-09-09 12:34:45 PM
Old man yells at cloud.  Cloud yells back.
 
2013-09-09 12:39:57 PM
"I am not opposed to all dumb wars. I am opposed to dumb Republican wars."
 
2013-09-09 12:39:58 PM
How about instead of getting into another war that won't ever end we spend some time fixing things like infrastructure? Hmmm? We don't need to fight another useless war no matter if chemical weapons were used or not. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S COPS.
 
2013-09-09 12:41:12 PM
McCain said that in the wake of the Iraq war, he understands why so many have misgivings about getting involved in the Syrian conflict.

Jeez, funny how now that a Dem wants to go to war, suddenly everybody is all contemplative.
 
2013-09-09 12:42:04 PM

A Terrible Human: How about instead of getting into another war that won't ever end we spend some time fixing things like infrastructure? Hmmm? We don't need to fight another useless war no matter if chemical weapons were used or not. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S COPS.


Seriously, you all need to flip over to cnn.com.

This thing is getting resolved without strikes.  Assad is giving up his CWs.
 
2013-09-09 12:42:34 PM

LasersHurt: FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."


I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?
 
2013-09-09 12:46:00 PM

FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!


Now? Democrats are pretty consistently in favor of all wars. Substantially more hawkish than Republicans who support all war but only only when a Republican is president.
 
2013-09-09 12:47:59 PM
The cheese stands alone...

Headso: Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.


When Romney advocated a line similar to McCain he got beat up by the Republican base for it. Involvement in Syria has been unpopular since early 2012.

JolobinSmokin: I'm more worried about anti-government christian nuts blowing up another building here in Oklahoma.


McVeigh says his prime motivation for the attack was the US bombing kids in Iraq. He saw the US being an immoral foreign power that needed to be taken down a notch. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
 
2013-09-09 12:48:38 PM
It is pretty funny to see all the GOP hawks who have found religion over this Syria business.  Obama really is magic.
 
2013-09-09 12:50:37 PM

Ned Stark: FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!

Now? Democrats are pretty consistently in favor of all wars. Substantially more hawkish than Republicans who support all war but only only when a Republican is president.


Democratic party leaders are retroactively reluctant warmongers. After they gladly support a war they become anti-war as penitence for their support. The Iraq War vote and subsequent rebuke of it was a textbook play.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:09 PM

FarkedOver: LasersHurt: FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."

I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?


Apparently you've found a tag showing peoples' voter registration, which I didn't know Fark had.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:37 PM
Sincerely, people....

For once, just for a little while...stop the bullshiat.  We're looking at something close to a perfect solution to this Syrian mess and you people are still snarling and snapping at each other.

Take five seconds and try to realize that we may well be looking at this thing getting resolved with all parties getting what they want...well aside from the rebels and fark them.

Take a breath and just...relax.  Just for a little bit.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:53 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Anti-war people yelling at McCain who were demanding more diplomacy:
Assad has been bombing his own people for nearly two years now.  What, exactly, do you think we should try diplomatically to stop this?

Specific actions and initiatives.  Not just a demand to "use diplomacy."

And it has been said that war is the ultimate act of diplomacy.


Maybe it's not on us to stop it.
 
2013-09-09 12:54:17 PM

Mrbogey: Ned Stark: FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!

Now? Democrats are pretty consistently in favor of all wars. Substantially more hawkish than Republicans who support all war but only only when a Republican is president.

Democratic party leaders are retroactively reluctant warmongers. After they gladly support a war they become anti-war as penitence for their support. The Iraq War vote and subsequent rebuke of it was a textbook play.


Oh.

Yeah, that's true. I fell for that.

Dammitsomuch.
 
2013-09-09 12:55:22 PM
Our allies in NATO and the U.N. (except France) don't seem to see any compelling reason to move forward on this.  There is no compelling proof put forward that Assad ordered a chemical weapon attack (other than Obama and the warhawks telling us they have it).  Additionallly, Al Qaeda insurgents are fighting on the side of the rebels at this point.

We should not be attacking Assad's forces until we have a more compelling reason.  We've stood by and watched people get slaughtered in North Korea, Darfur and numerous other countries.  If the U.N. is not yet compelled to enter Syria, we should stay out.
 
2013-09-09 12:55:25 PM

LasersHurt: FarkedOver: LasersHurt: FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."

I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?

Apparently you've found a tag showing peoples' voter registration, which I didn't know Fark had.


If you spend a week on the politics tab you see the same names and you see their politic leanings. 
With the exception of me and a handful of others.  I've been called a republican and I've been called a liberal, when in fact I am neither of these things.
 
2013-09-09 12:56:18 PM

LasersHurt: FarkedOver: LasersHurt: FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."

I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?

Apparently you've found a tag showing peoples' voter registration, which I didn't know Fark had.


This is fark. Unless someone is openly mocking liberals, they're a liberal.

And even then it's a toss up. You silly liebrul.
 
2013-09-09 12:57:38 PM

Dog Welder: Our allies in NATO and the U.N. (except France) don't seem to see any compelling reason to move forward on this.  There is no compelling proof put forward that Assad ordered a chemical weapon attack (other than Obama and the warhawks telling us they have it).  Additionallly, Al Qaeda insurgents are fighting on the side of the rebels at this point.

We should not be attacking Assad's forces until we have a more compelling reason.  We've stood by and watched people get slaughtered in North Korea, Darfur and numerous other countries.  If the U.N. is not yet compelled to enter Syria, we should stay out.


Dude, flip over to Cnn.com

It's over.  Syria's agreeing to turn over their CWs to the UN.  The main basis for the proposed attacks is all but resolved.
 
2013-09-09 12:57:55 PM
Maybe were all, all of us, just a little war weary?

//The next president will be elected because of his/her promises to scale back global intervention and mission.
 
2013-09-09 12:58:00 PM

Mrbogey: The cheese stands alone...

Headso: Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.

When Romney advocated a line similar to McCain he got beat up by the Republican base for it. Involvement in Syria has been unpopular since early 2012.

JolobinSmokin: I'm more worried about anti-government christian nuts blowing up another building here in Oklahoma.

McVeigh says his prime motivation for the attack was the US bombing kids in Iraq. He saw the US being an immoral foreign power that needed to be taken down a notch. Christianity had nothing to do with it.


Nice revisionist history there bub
 
2013-09-09 12:59:30 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Put another way: Is it really reasonable that the most good we can do in the world is by manufacturing expensive ways to kill people in foreign countries? Why not devote all those resources to feeding people/disaster relief/etc.? It has nothing to do with morals.


Are you saying we need boots on the ground in Syria? It sounds like you're saying we need boots on the ground in Syria.

// that's a bad idea
// bombs have an annoying way of killing humanitarians as well as soldiers
 
2013-09-09 01:02:44 PM
'most vocal oppoents' ??? Is anybody proofreading this crap?
 
2013-09-09 01:04:01 PM

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

They cant tell us the reasons because that's classified. We could protest of course, but look what happened to OWS when they just asked a few questions about how the banks are run.


What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.
 
2013-09-09 01:05:08 PM

meat0918: Maybe were all, all of us, just a little war weary?

//The next president will be elected because of his/her promises to scale back global intervention and mission.


I thought this one was elected because of that?

And got a Nobel peace prize?
 
2013-09-09 01:06:46 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

They cant tell us the reasons because that's classified. We could protest of course, but look what happened to OWS when they just asked a few questions about how the banks are run.

What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.


No one wants the left wing to have any power.
 
2013-09-09 01:08:13 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.


There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.
 
2013-09-09 01:09:00 PM

sendtodave: Bareefer Obonghit: Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

They cant tell us the reasons because that's classified. We could protest of course, but look what happened to OWS when they just asked a few questions about how the banks are run.

What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

No one wants the left wing to have any power.


I'd take a nice center-left technocrat, that'd be nice.
 
2013-09-09 01:11:46 PM

sendtodave: meat0918: Maybe were all, all of us, just a little war weary?

//The next president will be elected because of his/her promises to scale back global intervention and mission.

I thought this one was elected because of that?

And got a Nobel peace prize?


I think the biggest part was "Not a Republican after 8 years of Bush".

And Iraq "ended" on the time table set by the Bush administration, and Afghanistan is winding down, albeit a little slower than I would like.
 
2013-09-09 01:12:32 PM

FarkedOver: Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.


Thanks for the info. That makes sense. I do find it hilarious though that the group stereotyped as dirty, transient bums are now 'Occupying Homes' hahaha
 
2013-09-09 01:17:49 PM

lilbjorn: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Because bombing the shiat out of Saddam worked so well in stopping chemical weapons being used in the future?


Well Iraq stopped using chemical weapons after the first Persion Gulf war.  So there's that.
 
2013-09-09 01:18:26 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm lovin' it.
 
2013-09-09 01:18:47 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: FarkedOver: Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.

Thanks for the info. That makes sense. I do find it hilarious though that the group stereotyped as dirty, transient bums are now 'Occupying Homes' hahaha


They aren't even fighting for themselves in the occupy homes movement, they're actually getting arrested trying to keep sheriff departments from evicting just regular folks regardless of political affiliation.  It's a pretty noble cause and making people sympathetic to the leftists in this country who actually are on the ground doing the dirty work that nobody wants to do.
 
2013-09-09 01:19:32 PM

Marcus Aurelius: If we were consistent in our approach then that might be the case.  History indicates otherwise.  We tend to find outrage in the places where politicians want to bomb/invade.


That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.
 
2013-09-09 01:24:43 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: If we were consistent in our approach then that might be the case.  History indicates otherwise.  We tend to find outrage in the places where politicians want to bomb/invade.

That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.


It isn't dumb by virtue of previous (in)action, it's just all around stupid to have a strategic plan that consists entirely of "drop some bombs over there". It's even stupider in the light of recent history, and the makeup of the combatants.
 
2013-09-09 01:25:35 PM

FarkedOver: Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.


To inclusive? Who should be excluded and who should do the excluding? There's no particular group in the US fit to haul The Left together into an effective bloc from what I can see. And no enough of a Left to matter even if they did.

Spreading ideas is step 0 of creating those things.
 
2013-09-09 01:25:58 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: If we were consistent in our approach then that might be the case.  History indicates otherwise.  We tend to find outrage in the places where politicians want to bomb/invade.

That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.


Then supposing we really do have "pure" motives this time, what exactly is bombing Assad going to accomplish?  Bear in mind that the forces arrayed against him are radicalized Muslims, including al Qaeda.  Do we really want to give weapons and training to al Qaeda?  Do we want al Qaeda to Islamify Syria the way the Imams have in Iran?
 
2013-09-09 01:31:01 PM

Ned Stark: To inclusive? Who should be excluded and who should do the excluding? There's no particular group in the US fit to haul The Left together into an effective bloc from what I can see. And no enough of a Left to matter even if they did.

Spreading ideas is step 0 of creating those things.


When voting breaks down because people refuse to vote on whether or not level 3 sex offenders should be allowed on the occupy encampment, those people holding up the proceedings should have been ushered out immediately. They were not.
 
2013-09-09 01:42:54 PM
Gotta agree with The Rude Pundit on this one...(scroll down to 9/3 "Sorry, but fark Syria:" )

There's a shiatload of problems in THIS country that we supposedly can't afford to fix...but there's plenty of money to kill more brown people by blowing them up?

Sorry, not buying it.

If you want to get Biblical...we've got a huge-ass 2' X 4' in our own eye...We've no business fussing about the 'splinter' (OK, so it's a BIG damn splinter, but still...) in Syria's.
 
2013-09-09 01:49:38 PM

Infernalist: Dog Welder: Our allies in NATO and the U.N. (except France) don't seem to see any compelling reason to move forward on this.  There is no compelling proof put forward that Assad ordered a chemical weapon attack (other than Obama and the warhawks telling us they have it).  Additionallly, Al Qaeda insurgents are fighting on the side of the rebels at this point.

We should not be attacking Assad's forces until we have a more compelling reason.  We've stood by and watched people get slaughtered in North Korea, Darfur and numerous other countries.  If the U.N. is not yet compelled to enter Syria, we should stay out.

Dude, flip over to Cnn.com

It's over.  Syria's agreeing to turn over their CWs to the UN.  The main basis for the proposed attacks is all but resolved.


Which is excellent news.

Also...I don't think anyone was denying Syria has chemical weapons.  It's obvious they do.  As I pointed out in another thread, they've never signed the U.N. treaty that bans chemical weapons.  Additionally, it's not beyond the realm of reason that rebel forces have either made or confiscated some chemical weaponry.  Syria is a complete farking mess right now.

My question was always whether or not there is definitive proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons on his own troops and people.

So, now that this crisis is over, we can get back to doing what we do:  ignoring the slaughter that's been going on in Syria for over two years.
 
2013-09-09 01:54:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: If we were consistent in our approach then that might be the case.  History indicates otherwise.  We tend to find outrage in the places where politicians want to bomb/invade.

That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.

Then supposing we really do have "pure" motives this time, what exactly is bombing Assad going to accomplish?  Bear in mind that the forces arrayed against him are radicalized Muslims, including al Qaeda.  Do we really want to give weapons and training to al Qaeda?  Do we want al Qaeda to Islamify Syria the way the Imams have in Iran?


Dissuade him and other would-be tyrants form using chemical weapons.  That should be the goal.  I'm anti-war.  I was against the Iraq war even when I thought they had WMD.  However, I support air strikes against forces using chemical weapons to kill their own people.  How al Qaeda is involved should have little bearing on what the US does.  You don't let you enemies dictate your next steps.
 
2013-09-09 02:08:44 PM

Infernalist: This thing is getting resolved without strikes.  Assad is giving up his CWs.


What are the odds that he gives up ALL of them.

/I don't think we should invade, but I'm sure he'll have them stashed somewhere or just move them to an allied country.
 
2013-09-09 02:10:04 PM

mrshowrules: You don't let you enemies dictate your next steps.


So, Congress doesn't get to vote on it?
 
2013-09-09 02:20:52 PM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


Then the world needs to step up instead of sitting back waiting on the U.S. to do something.
 
2013-09-09 02:24:28 PM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

And what exactly does that involve?  Dropping a few random bombs in the desert?  Which horse are we backing?  The side that gasses their own people, or the side that is in bed with Al Queda?

Infernalist: You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII

And look where that has gotten us?

LOL lone superpower and leader of the free world?  OH NOES


China would like a word with you.
 
2013-09-09 02:26:49 PM

stevetherobot: Infernalist: GoldSpider: Infernalist: As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

And what exactly does that involve?  Dropping a few random bombs in the desert?  Which horse are we backing?  The side that gasses their own people, or the side that is in bed with Al Queda?

Infernalist: You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII

And look where that has gotten us?

LOL lone superpower and leader of the free world?  OH NOES

China would like a word with you.


When they have a comparable navy and can project force around the globe as effectively as we can, then they can have 'superpower' status.  Until then, they're an economic power, and maybe a threat to Russia militarily speaking, but that's it.
 
2013-09-09 02:29:19 PM

Infernalist: Sincerely, people....

For once, just for a little while...stop the bullshiat.  We're looking at something close to a perfect solution to this Syrian mess and you people are still snarling and snapping at each other.

Take five seconds and try to realize that we may well be looking at this thing getting resolved with all parties getting what they want...well aside from the rebels and fark them.

Take a breath and just...relax.  Just for a little bit.


Yabbut it means I gotta say thankya to that wretched commie bastid Pootie.

WELL THANK YA, POOTIE.

Ya did yerself a solid and kinda sorta maybe benefited us too a little bit.
 
2013-09-09 02:31:43 PM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


The world has long been fine with governments killing their own people. Unless we're willing to truly have a one world government, it will stay that way.
 
2013-09-09 02:33:32 PM
Just in case anyone would care to become slightly more informed on this subject, here's some very good analysis of the situation in Syria.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor- da y-syria-reader-part-2-william-polk/279255/
 
2013-09-09 02:35:58 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.


Shoot, stab, burn, blow up and starve 100,000 people and it's all good. Gas a couple thousand and "It's on outrage!"
 
2013-09-09 03:08:59 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Well we should have done something when Saddam was gassing the Kurds then.


Well we did, except it was to give him intelligence to better target his attacks, oops.
 
2013-09-09 03:09:43 PM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


If Assad even used  the weapons.  There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels, and the US has said all of its evidence is secret so they can't even back up their threats with evidence.  I don't even know what happened to the UN investigations, they seem to have fallen off the edge of the Earth.

If they could prove Assad was behind it, you may have a point.  But as it is it looks more like Saudi (and ostensibly US) backed rebel fighters using gas to pull the west into the war.
 
2013-09-09 03:18:46 PM

stevetherobot: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Shoot, stab, burn, blow up and starve 100,000 people and it's all good. Gas a couple thousand and "It's on outrage!"


It is all an outrage.  The use of chemical weapons is what pushes it over the edge in terms of requiring intervention.

Think of Kososvo.  It was a horrible war but when it actually became clear that genocide was happening, it compelled military intervention.

If military intervention meets humanitarian grounds, national security interests and a military objective is both definable and plausible, then a case can be made for it.

Syria meets those requirements and I believe the US and other countries need to respond.
 
2013-09-09 03:26:41 PM

mrshowrules: Think of Kososvo. It was a horrible war but when it actually became clear that genocide was happening, it compelled military intervention.


I wouldn't hold out that Kosovo was such a win. You simply replaced which ethnic power was doing the killing. (here)
 
2013-09-09 03:28:00 PM

dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels


What evidence of rebel use would that be?
 
2013-09-09 03:32:43 PM

Philip J. Fry: dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels

What evidence of rebel use would that be?


People have been saying it on the AM radio. That's PROOF!
 
2013-09-09 03:42:24 PM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.


Because we're noticing the laws of unintended consequences that keep biting us in the butt. No one batted an eye when the US put the Shah in place in Iran, but after seeing his this led to decades of fallout (the rise of fundamentalism in Iran and the hostage crisis leading to us arming Iraq, which in turn led to us having to fight Iraq in 1991, causing people to get pissed off at us building bases in Saudi Arabia, causing more support for Al Queda, which made 9/11 possible, which opened up the invasion of Iraq...)

What we're seeing is that interventionism turns into a game of whack-a-mole because as soon as you become involved you become responsible for the outcomes, so we wind up spending more lives and more treasure dealing with the fallout. We help bring down Gadaffi, and then not long afterwards we're dealing with idiots killing our Ambassadors for no good reason. It just never seems to end anymore, and the world never seems to get better. Seems like it might be more productive to tell the rest of the world to bigger off while we spend out fortune here trying to make life better for our own people instead of worrying about what is happening half a world away.
 
2013-09-09 03:50:07 PM
l.wigflip.com
 
2013-09-09 03:57:24 PM

Philip J. Fry: dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels

What evidence of rebel use would that be?


Behold, the conclusive evidence from the UN inspectors!

"How limited was the first phase of inspection? According to a report in The Guardian (Monday, August 26, 2013), the small team of UN Inspectors investigating the poison gas attack in Syria spent only an hour and a half at the site.  So far, we have not been given any report by the UN team, but the doctor in charge of the local hospital was apparently surprised by how brief and limited was their investigation.  According toThe Guardian reporter, he said, "The committee did not visit any house in the district. We asked the committee to exhume the bodies for checking them. But they refused. They say that there was no need to do that.

    'We had prepared samples for the committee from some bodies and video documentation. There were urine and blood samples as well as clothes. But they refused to take them.

    'After an hour and a half, they got an order from the regime to leave ASAP. The security force told the committee if they did not leave now, they could not guarantee their security. They could not visit the main six sites where the chemical rockets had fallen and lots of people were killed.' "
 
2013-09-09 03:57:30 PM

lockers: mrshowrules: Think of Kososvo. It was a horrible war but when it actually became clear that genocide was happening, it compelled military intervention.

I wouldn't hold out that Kosovo was such a win. You simply replaced which ethnic power was doing the killing. (here)


Kosovo ended genocide and created a foundation for peace.  It was successful and it was the right call.
 
2013-09-09 03:59:32 PM
Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Libya
Syria

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War
 
2013-09-09 04:05:17 PM

mrshowrules: Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo

 Afghanistan*
Libya
Syria


*though horribly poorly executed

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War

Libya

Syria


FTFY
 
2013-09-09 04:06:09 PM

Mad_Radhu: Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.

Because we're noticing the laws of unintended consequences that keep biting us in the butt. No one batted an eye when the US put the Shah in place in Iran, but after seeing his this led to decades of fallout (the rise of fundamentalism in Iran and the hostage crisis leading to us arming Iraq, which in turn led to us having to fight Iraq in 1991, causing people to get pissed off at us building bases in Saudi Arabia, causing more support for Al Queda, which made 9/11 possible, which opened up the invasion of Iraq...)

What we're seeing is that interventionism turns into a game of whack-a-mole because as soon as you become involved you become responsible for the outcomes, so we wind up spending more lives and more treasure dealing with the fallout. We help bring down Gadaffi, and then not long afterwards we're dealing with idiots killing our Ambassadors for no good reason. It just never seems to end anymore, and the world never seems to get better. Seems like it might be more productive to tell the rest of the world to bigger off while we spend out fortune here trying to make life better for our own people instead of worrying about what is happening half a world away.


I've been saying this for years.  I'm always shouted down as an isolationist.
 
2013-09-09 04:09:42 PM
Because Kerry really isn't very good at this, and gave Syria and Russia an out.. Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201399144556640217. ht ml
 
2013-09-09 04:09:52 PM

Jonnadiah: mrshowrules: Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo
 Afghanistan*
Libya
Syria

*though horribly poorly executed

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War
Libya

Syria

FTFY


How was Libya a wrong call?  It had support from African Council,  Council of Arab States, NATO, UN and the Libyan people.  Not a single American casualty and it accomplished exactly what it wanted to.

You might as well call WWII a mistake also.  Russia and Europe would have eventually defeated Hitler.
 
2013-09-09 04:13:29 PM

mrshowrules: How was Libya a wrong call? It had support from African Council, Council of Arab States, NATO, UN and the Libyan people. Not a single American casualty and it accomplished exactly what it wanted to.


It made the black guy look good, so it was bad.
 
2013-09-09 04:26:03 PM

Evil High Priest: Because Kerry really isn't very good at this, and gave Syria and Russia an out.. Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201399144556640217. ht ml


As SecState, he's our chief diplomat. I'd say avoiding military conflict (if it can be avoided while achieving the same results) IS being good at his job. If Syria peacefully disarms its CW program, that achieves the same goals as striking the everloving fark out of those capabilities (or whatever proxy).

Unless your measure of a SecState's job performance is "countries bombed" or "conflicts entered into".
 
2013-09-09 04:30:19 PM

Mad_Radhu: Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.

Because we're noticing the laws of unintended consequences that keep biting us in the butt. No one batted an eye when the US put the Shah in place in Iran, but after seeing his this led to decades of fallout (the rise of fundamentalism in Iran and the hostage crisis leading to us arming Iraq, which in turn led to us having to fight Iraq in 1991, causing people to get pissed off at us building bases in Saudi Arabia, causing more support for Al Queda, which made 9/11 possible, which opened up the invasion of Iraq...)

What we're seeing is that interventionism turns into a game of whack-a-mole because as soon as you become involved you become responsible for the outcomes, so we wind up spending more lives and more treasure dealing with the fallout. We help bring down Gadaffi, and then not long afterwards we're dealing with idiots killing our Ambassadors for no good reason. It just never seems to end anymore, and the world never seems to get better. Seems like it might be more productive to tell the rest of the world to bigger off while we spend out fortune here trying to make life better for our own people instead of worrying about what is happening half a world away.


This.
 
2013-09-09 04:45:30 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: The Gulf War was the result of Iraq invading the sovereign state of Kuwait, not Saddam gassing Kurds (which happened in the late '80's in the Iran-Iraq war). Learning history is important, or you'll just keep getting suckered.


Wasn't Iraq justified in that invasion because Kuwait was cross-drilling into sovereign Iraqi territory?
 
2013-09-09 04:47:03 PM

Dr Dreidel: Evil High Priest: Because Kerry really isn't very good at this, and gave Syria and Russia an out.. Let's call the whole thing off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201399144556640217. ht ml

As SecState, he's our chief diplomat. I'd say avoiding military conflict (if it can be avoided while achieving the same results) IS being good at his job. If Syria peacefully disarms its CW program, that achieves the same goals as striking the everloving fark out of those capabilities (or whatever proxy).

Unless your measure of a SecState's job performance is "countries bombed" or "conflicts entered into".


No, you missed my point. I think he's trying his best to arrange for military action in Syria, not avoid it. He farked up and gave an off the cuff statement about how it would be impossible to get Syria to agree to giving up all their CW.. and within hours, Russia and Syria said OK! Let's do that! Then he tried to walk that suggestion back completely but sorry, too late. Currently, it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen. Kerry and the Syrian rebels seem to be the only ones with a problem with this.
 
2013-09-09 11:04:04 PM

Evil High Priest: Philip J. Fry: dehehn: There seems to be more and more evidence it was the rebels

What evidence of rebel use would that be?

Behold, the conclusive evidence from the UN inspectors!

"How limited was the first phase of inspection? According to a report in The Guardian (Monday, August 26, 2013), the small team of UN Inspectors investigating the poison gas attack in Syria spent only an hour and a half at the site.  So far, we have not been given any report by the UN team, but the doctor in charge of the local hospital was apparently surprised by how brief and limited was their investigation.  According toThe Guardian reporter, he said, "The committee did not visit any house in the district. We asked the committee to exhume the bodies for checking them. But they refused. They say that there was no need to do that.

    'We had prepared samples for the committee from some bodies and video documentation. There were urine and blood samples as well as clothes. But they refused to take them.

    'After an hour and a half, they got an order from the regime to leave ASAP. The security force told the committee if they did not leave now, they could not guarantee their security. They could not visit the main six sites where the chemical rockets had fallen and lots of people were killed.' "


My favorite part of that article is when they cite a NY Times correspondent saying something that I can't confirm he even said in April as proof that homemade rockets were used in the attacks in August. I had no idea that the Grey Lady's correspondents were unbound from the concept of linear time.
 
2013-09-10 05:42:39 AM

mrshowrules: Jonnadiah: mrshowrules: Right Call
WWI
WWII
Korea
Persian Gulf War
Kosovo
 Afghanistan*
Libya
Syria

*though horribly poorly executed

Wrong Call
Vietnam War
Iraq War
Libya

Syria

FTFY

How was Libya a wrong call?  It had support from African Council,  Council of Arab States, NATO, UN and the Libyan people.  Not a single American casualty and it accomplished exactly what it wanted to.

You might as well call WWII a mistake also.  Russia and Europe would have eventually defeated Hitler.


I am getting sick of this retarded argument.

We did not enter WWII to rescue Europe.

Japan bombed us. Germany, being an ally of Japan, declared war on the United States the next day.

We didn't do it for the Jews. We didn't do it for the Brits. We didn't do it for the French. We did it because Germany declared war on us
 
2013-09-10 03:35:41 PM
I love the video of these people stating they have backed McCain for years.  Hasn't he always been in favor of bombing anyone, anytime?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/48783/john-mccain-syria-is-just-hi s- latest-excuse-to-go-to-war
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report