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 25
    More: Amusing, Sen. John McCain  
•       •       •

1503 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 11:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-09 10:37:09 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:34:51 AM  
3 votes:
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 12:15:22 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:57:14 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:51:28 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:26:00 AM  
2 votes:
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..
2013-09-10 05:42:39 AM  
1 votes:

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
2013-09-09 04:47:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:42:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:24:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:42:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:18:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:39:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:32:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:28:00 PM  
1 votes:
ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!
2013-09-09 12:19:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:56:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:47:19 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:38:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:15:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:40:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:08:34 AM  
1 votes:
www.thewho.info
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report