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.

(Gawker)   Syrian foreign minister says Syria will declare its chemical weapons arsenal, sign chemical weapons convention. Thanks Obama   (gawker.com) divider line 263
    More: Followup, Syrians, foreign ministers, chemical weapons arsenal, Syrian foreign minister, Secretary of State John Kerry, chemical weapons, arsenals  
•       •       •

1146 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2013 at 6:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-11 08:51:03 AM  

vygramul: TeamEd: vygramul: justanothersumguy: Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.

And Syria does?

Uh, yes. Russia's only Mediterranean naval base is in Syrian territory. It is one of the main reasons the Russians are so invested in this situation.

Ah - Syria is Russia's route to the sea.

How many Russian ships are in the Eastern Med at the moment?


Yeah, because they'd totally have to send new ships across land and not simply reroute ships from elsewhere to the Mediteranean.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601648/russia-cancels-syria-lob b ying-mission-to-d.c.-more-russian-war-ships-reportedly-head-for-medite rranean/

At the end of August they sent two warships, and a couple days ago they said the were sending two more. That's a helluva lot of Russian fire power to be parked off someone's coast.
 
2013-09-11 08:55:19 AM  
assad will continue the bloody civil war no matter what. he has proven he can use CW and get away with it.

in order for russia to secure his arsenal, assad needs to tell us what he has and where. he isn't going to do that. he has already said he doesn't even have CW, morons.

he will disclose a couple of sites and let russia take 50% of his stock. next time he needs to hold damascus....SUPRISE!!!!

the US and the UK have already shown they are not inclined to intervene, and obama needs congressional authorization that he won't get. we answer to china and russia at the UN. russia will continue to fund and protect assad.

as for the UN...the 15th annivesary of srebernica was a month ago. if your naeivete is driven by the fact that you are too young to remember, google it.
this deal will not get rid of assad's CW or stop him from using them. these are false assurances to the syrian people .

i have no desire to find fault with obama. his mistake was in mouthing off about unilateralsm and red lines when he couldn't deliver. i generally support him and his policies on the region.
 
2013-09-11 09:00:17 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: ongbok: There are some real idiots in this country.

If you don't think that Kerry's statement wasn't purposely floated out there for the world to hear the US was willing to give Assad a way to end this that didn't involve Tomahawks reigning down on him and him being hunted like Saddam, then you are a fool. And yes Putin was probably involved in the planning.

I'd like to think that in some smoked filled back room at the G20, this was the scenario.  I'd like to think that. It suggests a higher level of hubris from Obama and intelligence previously not on display.

. Alas, just as there is no direct proof that Assad carried out the attacks, we will never know.


So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might not be a duck, because that's just circumstantial evidence?

We may not have a smoking gun, but based on photos, video, and satellite imagery, there's pretty much a >99% chance it was them. Unless you're trolling, I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion.
 
2013-09-11 09:01:17 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: ongbok: There are some real idiots in this country.

If you don't think that Kerry's statement wasn't purposely floated out there for the world to hear the US was willing to give Assad a way to end this that didn't involve Tomahawks reigning down on him and him being hunted like Saddam, then you are a fool. And yes Putin was probably involved in the planning.

I'd like to think that in some smoked filled back room at the G20, this was the scenario.  I'd like to think that. It suggests a higher level of hubris from Obama and intelligence previously not on display.

. Alas, just as there is no direct proof that Assad carried out the attacks, we will never know.


hubris, wrong word....doh......

humility is what I meant.
 
2013-09-11 09:31:01 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'd like to think that. It suggests a higher level of hubris from Obama and intelligence previously not on display.


Nounhubris ()
Excessive pride, presumption or arrogance (originally toward the gods).Why would you want more hubris from anyone?  It usually gets your family placed under a curse, ending with someone killing his father and marrying his mother or some such rot.
 
2013-09-11 10:00:32 AM  

glmorrs1: vygramul: TeamEd: vygramul: justanothersumguy: Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.

And Syria does?

Uh, yes. Russia's only Mediterranean naval base is in Syrian territory. It is one of the main reasons the Russians are so invested in this situation.

Ah - Syria is Russia's route to the sea.

How many Russian ships are in the Eastern Med at the moment?

Yeah, because they'd totally have to send new ships across land and not simply reroute ships from elsewhere to the Mediteranean.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601648/russia-cancels-syria-lob b ying-mission-to-d.c.-more-russian-war-ships-reportedly-head-for-medite rranean/

At the end of August they sent two warships, and a couple days ago they said the were sending two more. That's a helluva lot of Russian fire power to be parked off someone's coast.


They're sending a frigate and a landing ship?

Oh, man, how will we ever deal with that?
 
2013-09-11 10:06:45 AM  

TheBigJerk: They're pretty upset.


Huh. Must be Tuesday. Or Wednesday. Or, you know...any other day. Those people can't get through their day without some enemy to rail against.
 
2013-09-11 11:30:58 AM  

vygramul: glmorrs1: vygramul: TeamEd: vygramul: justanothersumguy: Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.

And Syria does?

Uh, yes. Russia's only Mediterranean naval base is in Syrian territory. It is one of the main reasons the Russians are so invested in this situation.

Ah - Syria is Russia's route to the sea.

How many Russian ships are in the Eastern Med at the moment?

Yeah, because they'd totally have to send new ships across land and not simply reroute ships from elsewhere to the Mediteranean.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601648/russia-cancels-syria-lob b ying-mission-to-d.c.-more-russian-war-ships-reportedly-head-for-medite rranean/

At the end of August they sent two warships, and a couple days ago they said the were sending two more. That's a helluva lot of Russian fire power to be parked off someone's coast.

They're sending a frigate and a landing ship?

Oh, man, how will we ever deal with that?


By leaving them the f*ck alone. It is their client state, and it's a good thing that they're finally taking some action to defuse things, even a bit.

The fighting isn't going to stop. Assad is going to continue to have the Russians' support, because he's the devil they know. They will, however, stop drawing as much attention to themselves, and weapons that the Russians have knowingly supplied to them, or granted them the resources to build and stockpile.

For all the folks who are screaming that this damages the US by our NOT going in to liberate the sh*t out of them, and letting the Russians take the lead on this: it's not our backyard. The US and the international community has been looking for the Russians to clean up this mess for some time. Europe doesn't want to send troops, ships, or pretty much a damn thing to the region, because they have zero interests in Syria. Well, Turkey does, but that is because they've got that pesky border, and more refugees keep showing up daily. The US has only tangential interest, because of the humanitarian aspect, and we are watching closely in case AQ or others gain power, and gain access to a lot more resources, and pretty much, we've been shamed into the position, and there is NO ONE in this mess that we really want to back. There are no good outcomes from this, but the European nations want someone to calm things down, and given that Russia pretty much abdicated any involvement, save by continuing to do business with Assad, that someone is apparently the US, and once again, the UN is clucking their tongues about how terrible things are, while trying to nudge the US into doing something. Letting the Russians take the lead here is exactly what should have happened a while back, and by bringing this to a head, with attention, the Russians are finally doing that. Diplomatic pressure and grand strategy? Perhaps not so much, but this is outcome that folks have been looking for, and more, for some time, and it's NOT our job to roll in. It's NOT our responsibility, and with so many interests--billions invested at this point--in the nation by Russia, it has always been their mess to clean up.

The bloviating and shrill harpies who think that the US has any business involving itself in this mess, simply put, are opportunists who are looking to score points, with little understanding. Nothing new there. They want to believe that the US has a role in this mess, and we don't. We should be maybe sending aid where we can, and even that is suspect, considering how screwed up things are, and the lack of anyone in this who we could even nominally like to see in power. There are no "good guys" in this mess. No one, really, who we want to see gain the upper hand. If anything, the conflict, in terms of Real Politik, keeps folks wasting resources and manpower against one another, and keeps the conflicts between them rolling so that they are spread thinner, and concentrated on killing one another. The difficulty is that a good many innocent folks are caught in the middle--which has been the same in Afghanistan, Iraq, and certainly in Iran and around the region, since...well, a long ass time.

Would it be nice if we had some missile or bomb that instantly erased asshats from God's Green Earth? Yup. Of course, testing it might also wipe out a fair swath in this country as well, so maybe that's not a bad thing to not have in our arsenal.

The Russians taking even this baby step to taking some responsibility is what should have happened a while back. That it's taken this long is no feather in their cap. It is no feather in our own either, but we should be glad that at least it's showing that the Russians are getting sick of this crap. At least starting to. Not out of disgust, but out of annoyance at the attention it's gotten. It's akin to a teenager sullenly taking the returnable bottles and cans from his incredibly messy room to get his roommates off his back about the smell, and ONLY taking out the bottles and cans, and still leaving the heaps of trash and dirty clothes everywhere. "Are you happy, NOW?" It's not out of a new found cleanliness, but simply wanting to get folks of his back about a symptom of the larger issue. But, it's at least a start...
 
2013-09-11 12:54:18 PM  

hubiestubert: By leaving them the f*ck alone.


I'm not saying we have reason to go into conflict. The assertion was that there's a Russian FLEET off the coast of Syria, and that's why we're not messing with them. I am expressing dubiousness over that assertion.

I'm not going to argue with you over the rest of it - I think that the outcome most recently proposed does a lot to improve our credibility. And Russia's. And Syria's. Everyone wins here, IMO. (So I am fully confident that everyone can screw this up.)
 
2013-09-11 01:24:00 PM  

flondrix: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'd like to think that. It suggests a higher level of hubris from Obama and intelligence previously not on display.

Nounhubris ()
Excessive pride, presumption or arrogance (originally toward the gods).Why would you want more hubris from anyone?  It usually gets your family placed under a curse, ending with someone killing his father and marrying his mother or some such rot.


I DID correct myself one post later.
 
2013-09-11 01:59:00 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: flondrix: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'd like to think that. It suggests a higher level of hubris from Obama and intelligence previously not on display.

Nounhubris ()
Excessive pride, presumption or arrogance (originally toward the gods).Why would you want more hubris from anyone?  It usually gets your family placed under a curse, ending with someone killing his father and marrying his mother or some such rot.

I DID correct myself one post later.


Ah.  When my english teacher first used the word "hubris", I thought it was a dish made from sheep's intestines.
 
2013-09-11 02:32:15 PM  

flondrix: I thought it was a dish made from sheep's intestines.


No, that's Chicago Deep Dish Pizza you're thinking of.
 
2013-09-11 02:41:55 PM  

vygramul: hubiestubert: By leaving them the f*ck alone.

I'm not saying we have reason to go into conflict. The assertion was that there's a Russian FLEET off the coast of Syria, and that's why we're not messing with them. I am expressing dubiousness over that assertion.

I'm not going to argue with you over the rest of it - I think that the outcome most recently proposed does a lot to improve our credibility. And Russia's. And Syria's. Everyone wins here, IMO. (So I am fully confident that everyone can screw this up.)


The Russian Naval base is the basis of their presence, and it is a declarative measure, as well as a base of operations to keep pirates, odd military clashes, and certainly a fair amount of equipment in the region. A fleet it ain't, but it is a legal reason to have to protect their assets, and further their interests in the area. Much like many of our own bases overseas. Not a huge presence, but a statement of intent, and a projection of power that is a step up from an embassy.
 
Displayed 13 of 263 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report