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.

(Telegraph)   Syria: Good luck with your game of "Chemical Weapon Whack-a-Mole" you silly Westerners   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 64
    More: Followup, Westerners, chemical weapons, Syrians, Syrian regime, military operation plan, air strikes, Ghouta, russian foreign minister  
•       •       •

3538 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2013 at 9:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-13 08:44:44 AM
It's a good thing we don't have 50 cruise missiles.
 
2013-09-13 09:33:50 AM
How about 500 cruise missiles up your ass tomorrow morning, Assad?
 
2013-09-13 09:40:00 AM
Cue the American outrage that somebody would actually try to defend themselves and their resources.
 
2013-09-13 09:41:37 AM
Close enough only counts in horse shoes and Thermal Nuclear Weapons.   We asked you to play nice, but since you refuse how about we give you a Trident II enema?
 
2013-09-13 09:41:43 AM
Thanks a lot, President Archduke Assad.
 
2013-09-13 09:46:29 AM

Bschott007: Close enough only counts in horse shoes and Thermal Nuclear Weapons.   We asked you to play nice, but since you refuse how about we give you a Trident II enema?


As I understand American nuclear doctrine, the use of chemical weapons on US citizens or troops is one of the few reasons, other than a nuclear attack, in which the United States would consider responding with a nuclear weapon.

Syria and Russia had better hope that none of those chemical weapons ends up being used on any NATO allies in the next few months by either loyalists or Rebels. That really would spark WWIII.
 
2013-09-13 09:48:28 AM
Bschott007


Close enough only counts in horse shoes and Thermal Nuclear Weapons. We asked you to play nice, but since you refuse how about we give you a Trident II enema?

Yes, liberal bombs are good bombs. We should definitely use our peace-prize missiles to defend al-qaeda
 
2013-09-13 09:49:22 AM

OnlyM3: Yes, liberal bombs are good bombs. We should definitely use our peace-prize missiles to defend al-qaeda


Both sides are bad. Target the chemical weapons, and don't provide support to either faction. Just remove them from the equation.
 
2013-09-13 09:50:36 AM

hardinparamedic: Bschott007: Close enough only counts in horse shoes and Thermal Nuclear Weapons.   We asked you to play nice, but since you refuse how about we give you a Trident II enema?

As I understand American nuclear doctrine, the use of chemical weapons on US citizens or troops is one of the few reasons, other than a nuclear attack, in which the United States would consider responding with a nuclear weapon.

Syria and Russia had better hope that none of those chemical weapons ends up being used on any NATO allies in the next few months by either loyalists or Rebels. That really would spark WWIII.


Wow, you read my mind in where I was going with that.
 
2013-09-13 09:52:40 AM

generallyso: Cue the American outrage that somebody would actually try to defend themselves and their resources.


Killing your own citizens with chemical weapons is not "defending themselves and their resources".
 
2013-09-13 09:55:43 AM
Anybody who thinks that Assad is giving up his chemical weapons is about as naive as can be. He came out yesterday and said that any deal would include the USA not aiding the rebels, and it was also reported yesterday that the CIA has been shipping weapons in Syria. The missiles will be flying before the end of the year.
 
2013-09-13 09:58:13 AM
hardinparamedic:Syria and Russia had better hope that none of those chemical weapons ends up being used on any NATO allies in the next few months by either loyalists or Rebels. That really would spark WWIII.

Yeah, Russia and Syria better be real careful to make sure WWIII doesn't accidentally break out.... you know, because there is no one else in the world that is needlessly pushing a confrontation that could spark WWIII and would get completely and totally screwed by that...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-13 09:58:31 AM

hardinparamedic: OnlyM3: Yes, liberal bombs are good bombs. We should definitely use our peace-prize missiles to defend al-qaeda

Both sides are bad. Target the chemical weapons, and don't provide support to either faction. Just remove them from the equation.


It was found that the DoD is going to be assisting the CIA in training of the rebel forces in both weapons usage but also tactical support and communications equipment.

Anyone want to take bets on who will be helping target those tomahawks for us?
 
2013-09-13 09:58:44 AM

hardinparamedic: Bschott007: Close enough only counts in horse shoes and Thermal Nuclear Weapons.   We asked you to play nice, but since you refuse how about we give you a Trident II enema?

As I understand American nuclear doctrine, the use of chemical weapons on US citizens or troops is one of the few reasons, other than a nuclear attack, in which the United States would consider responding with a nuclear weapon.

Syria and Russia had better hope that none of those chemical weapons ends up being used on any NATO allies in the next few months by either loyalists or Rebels. That really would spark WWIII.


i doubt anything besides a full blown nuclear attack would result in a nuclear response. However, a chemical attack would definitely result in one of those your-regime-is-gone-your-military-is-annihilated in 24hrs type responses.
 
2013-09-13 10:00:07 AM
What a crock. Some people will believe anything. Nice try.
 
2013-09-13 10:00:09 AM

hardinparamedic: Target the chemical weapons


Blowing up chemical weapons is pretty stupid.

And i see fark is still running stories with vague unsubstantiated reports of alleged 'secretive military units' possibly maybe doing things according to people in the US who want to attack Syria.

It's what you'd expect them to say after he said he'd hand them all over. "oh look, he can't hand them over. guess we gotta attack". Use your heads, people.
 
2013-09-13 10:01:13 AM

hardinparamedic: Syria and Russia had better hope that none of those chemical weapons ends up being used on any NATO allies in the next few months by either loyalists or Rebels. That really would spark WWIII.


Syrian government has tossed shells into Turkey on dozens of occasions and have shot down a Turkish air force jet, killing two officers.
 
2013-09-13 10:02:42 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Blowing up chemical weapons is pretty stupid.


Not really. Those weapons are stored as binary agents which tend to be highly flammable, and nerve gasses in general are vulnerable to destruction by heat.

Satanic_Hamster: Syrian government has tossed shells into Turkey on dozens of occasions and have shot down a Turkish air force jet, killing two officers.


As I understand, Turkey has launched limited military responses into Syria based on this.
 
2013-09-13 10:03:42 AM
Perhaps they'll smuggle them back to Iraq.

/Yeah, I went there.
 
2013-09-13 10:04:01 AM
Let's see- it's a Russian plan to get Assad to give up his chemical weapons.

If Assad doesn't comply, he's just said "Putin's a little biatch who's all talk and no action".

That's not really a recipe for success.
 
2013-09-13 10:05:06 AM
TFA: An elite and secretive military unit [...] has been moving nerve agents and munitions for several months, US officials told the Wall Street Journal in a bid to make them harder to track.

I am glad to see US officials looking out for the Wall Street Journal. But how exactly does this information make WSJ harder to track?

(How do reporters like this keep their jobs?)
 
2013-09-13 10:06:19 AM

hardinparamedic: Not really. Those weapons are stored as binary agents which tend to be highly flammable, and nerve gasses in general are vulnerable to destruction by heat.


Difficulty: containing the agents to make sure they get completely burned while you're using high explosives to blow buildings apart.
 
2013-09-13 10:07:10 AM
This is why you don't go to war on a whim or on ginned-up pretexts.
When the time comes you really, really need to bomb someone or change a regime in thirty minutes or less, everyone is tired of the war crap and you don't have the political support to do it.
 
2013-09-13 10:10:17 AM
The whack-a-mole analogy assumes you have one hammer for 50 moles..

This would be like playing whack-a-mole with 500 hammers for 50 moles.
 
2013-09-13 10:10:50 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: This is why you don't go to war on a whim or on ginned-up pretexts.
When the time comes you really, really need to bomb someone or change a regime in thirty minutes or less, everyone is tired of the war crap and you don't have the political support to do it.


They'll find some way to get you to go along with it. Most of the people here still think 9/11 wasn't staged.

Just a matter of time.
 
2013-09-13 10:14:39 AM

hardinparamedic: As I understand, Turkey has launched limited military responses into Syria based on this.


I'm wondering what will be the "fark it" point for Turkey.  Chemical weapon use, even just a chem cloud that drifts over the boarder that sickens?  A shelling that results in dozens of deaths?

Really surprised how restrained they were after that F-4 was shot down
 
2013-09-13 10:16:31 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Most of the people here still think 9/11 wasn't staged.


Jesus Christ, Frank.
 
2013-09-13 10:16:50 AM
The problem isn't so much the idea of them stashing chemical weapons. As long as they're too busy hiding them from the UN to actually _use_ them on anybody, I'm content enough with the situation. I don't care if Assad wants to feel smug and clever.
 
2013-09-13 10:18:17 AM

hardinparamedic: J. Frank Parnell: Most of the people here still think 9/11 wasn't staged.

Jesus Christ, Frank.


Case in point.
 
2013-09-13 10:19:29 AM

J. Frank Parnell: Case in point.


Why would the US Government need to stage 9/11 to do anything? America, if anything, has proven constantly that we don't need a reason to fark ourselves and another country over.
 
2013-09-13 10:19:35 AM

Gonz: Let's see- it's a Russian plan to get Assad to give up his chemical weapons.

If Assad doesn't comply, he's just said "Putin's a little biatch who's all talk and no action".

That's not really a recipe for success.


To me, it just seems like some sort of "compromise" to allow a few world leaders out of the corner they painted themselves in, without actually accomplishing anything.

International diplomacy is a strange game...
 
2013-09-13 10:29:10 AM

generallyso: Cue the American outrage that somebody would actually try to defend themselves and their resources.


Yeah, how will the Syrians get by without their daily allotment of deadly gas?

www.funnycorner.net
 
2013-09-13 10:39:41 AM

J. Frank Parnell: HotIgneous Intruder: This is why you don't go to war on a whim or on ginned-up pretexts.
When the time comes you really, really need to bomb someone or change a regime in thirty minutes or less, everyone is tired of the war crap and you don't have the political support to do it.

They'll find some way to get you to go along with it. Most of the people here still think 9/11 wasn't staged.

Just a matter of time.


I have no doubt we'll whack Assad. If the Saudis want it, it will get done.
 
2013-09-13 10:54:44 AM
An elite and secretive military unit compromised of members of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect has been moving nerve agents and munitions for several months, US officials told the Wall Street Journal in a bid to make them harder to track

And do these "officials" have names?
 
2013-09-13 10:57:32 AM

Marcus Aurelius: An elite and secretive military unit compromised of members of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect has been moving nerve agents and munitions for several months, US officials told the Wall Street Journal in a bid to make them harder to track

And do these "officials" have names?


US officials are nortoriously hard to track.
 
2013-09-13 11:20:13 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Really surprised how restrained they were after that F-4 was shot down


I'd bet there was a behind doors meeting where the US asked kindly for them to not respond more so as not to blow the region up.
 
2013-09-13 11:23:01 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: I'd bet there was a behind doors meeting where the US asked kindly for them to not respond more so as not to blow the region up.


Yep.  Though, at min, I think everyone would have understood if they whacked the AA site and it's radar support.  Especially given that they had two officers die.
 
2013-09-13 11:23:17 AM
I, for one, am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Middle Eastern autocrat is reluctant to turn his invasion-deterrant weapons over to the World Powers for destruction.
 
2013-09-13 11:24:53 AM

J. Frank Parnell: hardinparamedic: Not really. Those weapons are stored as binary agents which tend to be highly flammable, and nerve gasses in general are vulnerable to destruction by heat.

Difficulty: containing the agents to make sure they get completely burned while you're using high explosives to blow buildings apart.


Destroying chemical weapons when they are under controlled storage is hard enough. It requires furnaces burning at over 2,000 °F for 15 minutes. Dropping any kind of ordinance on a storage depot has the potential of merely dispersing the weaponized materiel before the heat of the explosive could burn off the chemicals. Napalm burns at a maximum temp of over 2000 but it would be a flash fire that would not last long enough to degrade the chemicals properly and effectively.

If we are asinine enough to go the military route, we will be targeting the ordinance delivery systems (rocket launchers, tanks, mortars, jets, cannons) and not the ordinance itself. By denying the army the ability to shoot/lob/drop CW we will have done an effective preventative measure.

Now, not to get too conspiratorial and tin-hatty: during the build up and initial days of the Iraqi invasion, there were rumors that Saddam was shipping chemical weapons to Syria in order to hide them from the US. When (if) Assad hands his CWs over to Russia, what would people say if we discover that they had, in fact, originated in Iraq, thus proving that Saddam did have WMDs at the time of the invasion? I'm not saying it would justify the war in any way, but it could make people rethink their derision a little for the intelligence community that kept saying Iraq had WMDs.
 
2013-09-13 11:28:08 AM

BigNumber12: I, for one, am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Middle Eastern autocrat is reluctant to turn his invasion-deterrant weapons over to the World Powers for destruction.


That assumes the article is anything more than a steaming pile of horse manure, which is a dubious assumption at best.
 
2013-09-13 11:36:13 AM
Sometimes I just want to grab Assad and wipe that dirt off his lip. Like a mom pulling a kleenex out of her purse and using her spit to clean her kid's face.
 
2013-09-13 11:50:59 AM

Marcus Aurelius: BigNumber12: I, for one, am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Middle Eastern autocrat is reluctant to turn his invasion-deterrent weapons over to the World Powers for destruction.

That assumes the article is anything more than a steaming pile of horse manure, which is a dubious assumption at best.


Do you really believe that he's going to voluntarily give it all up? Hell, Saddam kept up the empty threats and bluster long after his arsenal had been cut to the bone, kept it up as his country was being overrun. You don't just admit that you no longer have an invasion deterrent, especially not in the Middle East.
 
2013-09-13 12:15:19 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-13 12:32:18 PM

cchris_39: generallyso: Cue the American outrage that somebody would actually try to defend themselves and their resources.

Killing your own citizens with chemical weapons is not "defending themselves and their resources".


Except (just like what would happen in the U.S. if the situation was reversed) Assad doesn't recognize the rebels as "His" citizens. They are a subversive faction that exists in his country that cannot claim "Citizenship" in Syria due to the fact that they are rebelling against the country (as it is now).  The same thing happened when Saddam was gassing Kurds. People like you raised a fuss because he was "Gassing his own citizens" when in fact the party he was actively fighting were not recognized as citizens of the country, and were an insurgent (in the true sense of the word) attacking force.

If you want to be outraged, be outraged over the fact that both parties are using methods that are internationally deemed to be cruel and excessive to kill the opposition. It has been almost 100 years since the horrors of regular gas use (by Allied forces and Germans) in WW1, so people have begun to forget how truly terrible gas is and why both sides agreed to never use it again after the war.  I had relatives who were at the 2nd Somme and Verdun who told some absolutely terrible tales of the gas attacks, tales which serve as a reminder to me today of why the use of gas at any time is a terrible thing.

So, next time you want to get all knee-jerky about the use of gas in an attack... please do it for the correct reason.
 
2013-09-13 12:51:03 PM
a.abcnews.com
Obama: So, are you the 'good cop' today?
Putin: I thinks so, lemme check.  Hey Dmitry!  Are we the good cop or the bad cop today?!

Medvedev:  Good cop!
 
2013-09-13 12:52:03 PM

NEPAman: Perhaps they'll smuggle them back to Iraq.

/Yeah, I went there.


No, it's actually funny you mentioned that, because I seem to remember someone being all coy with their alleged weapon supply and wasting inspectors' time with outrageous bald-faced lies before someone high-up in the US government said "screw it, let's just get over there and  make damn sure they're cleaned out."

I'm trying to remember that foreign leader's name now. Saddam ...Hessian? No... Hosiery? No, Husqvarna? That can't be right... Just wait, it'll come to me.

If anything it sets a useful precedent, does it not?
 
rka
2013-09-13 12:54:29 PM

washington-babylon: I had relatives who were at the 2nd Somme and Verdun who told some absolutely terrible tales of the gas attacks, tales which serve as a reminder to me today of why the use of gas at any time is a terrible thing.


But today, the leaders of the very countries that should know and remember the horrors of chemical attacks want nothing to do with this war.

Canada
UK
Germany
Australia
Italy
Austria
Belgium
Russia

The Great Powers from WWI (other than France) are leading the charge *NOT* to go into this.

I say let this one be on their heads.
 
2013-09-13 01:45:08 PM

drop: [i.imgur.com image 800x600]


"Problem, mortals?"
 
2013-09-13 01:54:19 PM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: No, it's actually funny you mentioned that, because I seem to remember someone being all coy with their alleged weapon supply and wasting inspectors' time with outrageous bald-faced lies before someone high-up in the US government said "screw it, let's just get over there and make damn sure they're cleaned out."

I'm trying to remember that foreign leader's name now. Saddam ...Hessian? No... Hosiery? No, Husqvarna? That can't be right... Just wait, it'll come to me.

If anything it sets a useful precedent, does it not?


Funny story that.

We bombed the shiat out of that country using cruise missiles after that whole Kurd thing and told him to get rid of that shiat. He then played coy and said "I don't have it anymore" while he buried in the desert and then later destroyed it after the first Iraq war when he was worried they could fall into Iran's hands. But when he dug it up to destroy it, he never had any paper work done on it so as to make it appear that he never had them to begin with, but they indeed were destroyed.

So really this whole 10 year quagmire can be blamed on some lone Iraqi military clerk who didn't follow rules.
 
2013-09-13 03:09:19 PM

BigNumber12: You don't just admit that you no longer have an invasion deterrent, especially not in the Middle East


That assumes that what amounts to bug spray for humans is a deterrent.  Most often it's used on unruly civilians.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report