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.

(CNN)   Those chemical weapons which Iraq had, then were moved to Syria, then Syria didn't have, now Syria does have, now are in Iraq. Confused? You won't be after this episode of the UN Security Council   (amanpour.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 229
    More: Followup, Prime Minister of Iraq, anti-tank weapons, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri, Salim Idriss, Free Syrian Army, American Friends, Moussawi, Heads of state of Syria  
•       •       •

1615 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:14 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-14 07:11:52 PM

Linux_Yes: where them boys gittin' all dem chemical weapons from??


Uncle Jessie?
 
2013-09-14 07:13:35 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Linux_Yes: where them boys gittin' all dem chemical weapons from??


Manufacturing plants... yo.


The ones that Assad denied he had until the US threaten air strikes? Those manufacturing plants?
 
2013-09-14 07:20:20 PM

max_pooper: Please explain how it's in Assad's best interest to defy Russia to hang on to his chemical weapons?


Assad knows he's a Putin puppet.
Obama must have dozed off during the inauguration-day briefings in which he was told he's a Saudi puppet.
 
2013-09-14 07:31:50 PM
for those saying Assad didn't order the attacks....if he didn't who did and why is his head not on a pike in front of Assad's Hq? Just asking.
 
2013-09-14 07:42:40 PM
I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.
 
2013-09-14 07:45:05 PM

Hobodeluxe: for those saying Assad didn't order the attacks....if he didn't who did and why is his head not on a pike in front of Assad's Hq? Just asking.


He very well may be. It's not like C-Span has a live feed from Assad's office.

Or Assad may not have ordered the attack but takes no object to it happening.

Or it could have been magic sarin gas fairies.
 
2013-09-14 07:47:31 PM

OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.


I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.
 
2013-09-14 07:55:39 PM

freak7: max_pooper: You went from being absolutely assured of Assad failing to comply to let's wait and see pretty quick once RyogaM clearly explained the situation. I assume you realize that your predictions are unlikely to come true but don't want to admit it.

No, I'm 100% certain he's going to fark around with the terms of the agreement and that the USA will eventually launch strikes. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you a year of Total Fark that there are strikes against Syria in the next 6 months as a result of not making good on this deal.


There needs to be an entire section on Fark dedicated to bets placed in the forums. It could show all outstanding bets, wagers, and the Farkers who made the bets.

Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.
 
2013-09-14 07:56:05 PM

Halli: OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.

I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.


That doesn't stop them from trying constantly.
 
2013-09-14 08:13:10 PM

Hobodeluxe: for those saying Assad didn't order the attacks....if he didn't who did and why is his head not on a pike in front of Assad's Hq? Just asking.


It's complicated?  I'm going into the land of pure speculation:

Fact: Assad and Russia still insist that the attack was done by the rebels.
Possible result:  If Assad makes anyone who had the capability of circumventing the control and command structure disappear, it would be taken as an admission that the attack originated from Syrian military.

Rumors:Assad is not in complete control of his military.
Possible result: Whoever made the order may be popular in the military, or, may have family connections that make reprisals too dangerous for Assad and cause him to lose control of his military.

Fact: We don't have complete intelligence.
Fact: Assad and Russia still insist that the attack was done by rebels.
Possible result: The person is already dead, but it is being kept secret so as not to upset the lie told about the rebels.

Wrinkles to consider: Let's pretend Assad ordered the strike.  Let's pretend that strike was carried out as ordered. Now, Assad is saying he didn't order the strike and that the strike was not from his military. How does that effect the moral of his military leaders, to know that they cannot trust their commander in chief to stand behind the orders they give and will disavow both the order and the result?  That's got to be terrible for moral.  This must be taken into account, I think, in some way.
 
2013-09-14 08:15:32 PM

OgreMagi: Halli: OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.

I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.

That doesn't stop them from trying constantly.


Who exactly does that constantly in the Security Council?
 
2013-09-14 08:17:25 PM

RyogaM: Fact: Assad and Russia still insist that the attack was done by the rebels.
Possible result: If Assad makes anyone who had the capability of circumventing the control and command structure disappear, it would be taken as an admission that the attack originated from Syrian military.


There was a video a a supposed rebel admitting they had used chemical weapons.  Of course, videos can be easily faked.  Just dress someone up and give them a script.

But if it is true, it still doesn't clear Assad and his military.  It is quite possible both sides have "crossed the red line".  Fark 'em.  It's not our problem.  Let allah sort them out.
 
2013-09-14 08:17:50 PM

Halli: OgreMagi: Halli: OgreMagi: I doubt the UN Security Council will be able to find time in their busy schedule of denouncing Israel to do anything useful.

I do believe you are attempting some kind of a talking point. Doesn't really work when the US has veto power in the UN security council.

That doesn't stop them from trying constantly.

Who exactly does that constantly in the Security Council?


Rwanda, they're always blaming the Jews for everything.
 
2013-09-14 08:18:16 PM

Fupac: Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.


Even without the brokering, the public shaming would suffice.
 
2013-09-14 08:21:16 PM

freak7: Fupac: Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.

Even without the brokering, the public shaming would suffice.


Yes, we all fondly remember the League of Fail. Are any of them around anymore?
 
2013-09-14 08:37:53 PM

max_pooper: freak7: Fupac: Would be even better if they could find a way to broker the wagers.

Even without the brokering, the public shaming would suffice.

Yes, we all fondly remember the League of Fail. Are any of them around anymore?


Yup but they found new alts.
 
2013-09-14 09:16:57 PM

Fart_Machine: Yup but they found new alts.


ok you got me, that was humorous
 
2013-09-14 09:33:49 PM

freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs.  Why?  Why would he do that?  What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.


I think you mean "UN weapons inspectors had not documented any unrecorded or unknown chemical weapons in Iraq."   People still trying to justify that farkup Bush's decision to ignore them like to forget that.

From the 2003 Q1 UNMOVIC Report to the Assembly

14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using UNMOVIC's own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.
 
2013-09-14 09:47:47 PM
Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.
 
2013-09-14 10:05:30 PM

the_dude_abides: Fart_Machine: Yup but they found new alts.

ok you got me, that was humorous


Is there any way to upvote a request for such a feature?  That would be marvelous.
 
2013-09-14 10:37:37 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Saddam never had chemical weapons. Hans Blix just made up that detailed list of Saddam's chemical weapons. I've actually known democratics who think this.


Despite the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, people are making this claim?  I should stop being surprised by people's ability to ignore provable facts.
 
2013-09-14 10:40:15 PM

max_pooper: I think he is just woefully misinformed


I've not said one thing that isn't true. Your failure is that you refuse to spend even a moment researching what I've said and continue relying on what you think is the truth. Anybody who reads this thread down the road is going to be lol'ing at you and the others sitting here claiming I'm making shiat up, when everything I've said is 100% true. I know I'm getting a kick out of it.
 
2013-09-14 10:43:05 PM

max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?


Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.
 
2013-09-14 10:44:13 PM
bet
 
2013-09-14 10:45:34 PM

freak7: max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?

Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.


What did the documentation say in 2003?
 
2013-09-14 10:46:37 PM

freak7: max_pooper: I think he is just woefully misinformed

I've not said one thing that isn't true. Your failure is that you refuse to spend even a moment researching what I've said and continue relying on what you think is the truth. Anybody who reads this thread down the road is going to be lol'ing at you and the others sitting here claiming I'm making shiat up, when everything I've said is 100% true. I know I'm getting a kick out of it.


So all your prognostications are truths? All the things that you swear are going to happen are "100% true"? Did you come from the future? Did you bring back a copy of Grey's Sports Almanac? I could use it next week in my college pick 'me.

Sadly it's just another post by freak7 stating an easily provable falsehood.
 
2013-09-14 10:47:16 PM

unit63: Man I was so hoping this was going to be a whole thread about how great Soap was. Sad face.


I hate to think of how many people here have no idea what Soap is/was

/Was brilliant IMHO.
 
2013-09-14 10:48:12 PM
This thread needs a Molotov cocktail dropped on it.
 
2013-09-14 10:48:46 PM

Rent Party: freak7: max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?

Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.

What did the documentation say in 2003?


Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.
 
2013-09-14 10:54:19 PM

max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.


Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.
 
2013-09-14 11:01:22 PM

studs up: Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...

Well at least you admitted it.

I never made it further than basic college chemistry but chemicals degrade at different rates based upon composition and exposure to other chemicals and energy. I'd only take an expert biochemist's opinion on how long chemical weapons can last before they effectively go inert.

If they are binary chemical weapons, degradation is not an issue.
/not a biochemist


If memory serves, the longer it lasts the more expensive it gets, either because you have to do more to keep it properly sealed to avoid degradation, it's more expensive to make in the first place, or both.  We found 500-odd mustard gas artillery shells in Iraq, we didn't mention it because they were so degraded over the last 15-20 years they'd been sitting that they were less toxic than the stuff we subsidize oil companies to dump in our drinking water.

Well okay that's hyperbole but only a little.

And a quick perusal of binary chemical weapons shows the documented ones are still biodegradable in their component halves, though probably stable as long as you keep them sealed up properly.  They're also surprisingly EASY to make, which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise given the terrorist attack that used it, which we don't talk about because apparently the yellow devils in Tokyo don't count.
 
2013-09-14 11:03:33 PM

freak7: max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.

Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.


You only came back with the four year period post after somebody had shown you to be wrong.

You know very little about the facts and back pedal when shown to be wrong.
 
2013-09-14 11:06:44 PM

freak7: max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.

Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.


What did they say about it in 2003?
 
2013-09-14 11:08:53 PM

Rent Party: freak7: max_pooper: Remember when freak7 claimed that 1998 was the last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq? Hilarious.

Perhaps you should go back and read the comments. I said that the inspectors were booted in 1998 and that there was a 4 year period when they were not in country. They returned in late 2002, not 2003 as you and others had claimed.

Face it, you're ignorant of the basic facts of Iraq's weapons program and are trying to cover your ass by trolling.

What did they say about it in 2003?


Give him a minute, he's not done googling it yet.
 
2013-09-14 11:10:35 PM

freak7: max_pooper: So you are finally admitting that you haven't posted any facts?

Iraq had documented chemical weapons as of 1998, that's a fact. Stop being an ignorant fool and you'd be able to confirm that with a simple Google search. You are hilariously ignorant and continue doubling down with every post.

As for my opinions on Syria, I offered you a bet of and you conveniently ignored it. Man up for once in your internet life and take the best.


Prove it.  If it's easy you can do it yourself instead of demanding others do it, if it ISN'T easy then you should have a reason why it's still supposed to be accepted as dogma.  And you should be prepped for the follow up, "what kind of weapons were they?"  There were munitions found after the invasion which no one talks about because they were all expired, empty, or garbage and waving them around as "proof we were right" would hurt the GOP more than it would help.

Here, the farking Bush-apologist CATO institute for some citations just to show you how it's done.

Hell, I wouldn't b surprised if most of the "gaps" between Saddam's arsenal in the 80s and his complete lack of arsenal in the 90s are covered by Military Intelligence "classified information" that shows just how much bad chemistry the victims of Gulf War syndrome were exposed to.
 
2013-09-14 11:11:42 PM
Take the bet.
 
2013-09-14 11:25:46 PM

freak7: Take the bet.


What exactly is the bet?
 
2013-09-14 11:29:12 PM

max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?


He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.
 
2013-09-14 11:32:17 PM

Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.


Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?
 
2013-09-14 11:32:53 PM

Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.


I know what bet he is talking about. I want him to lay out specifics. I'm not sure he knows enough about the various potential outcomes to properly detail the terms of this bet.
 
2013-09-14 11:36:17 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?


Obama doesn't want war. He is negotiating terms to avoid it. He just willing to use force if necessary.

You desparately want Obama to strike Syria so you dance around and try to claim Obama is just as bad as Bush. You are as ignorant as you are transparent.
 
2013-09-14 11:38:10 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?


I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.
 
2013-09-14 11:38:55 PM

max_pooper: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

I know what bet he is talking about. I want him to lay out specifics. I'm not sure he knows enough about the various potential outcomes to properly detail the terms of this bet.


Now I know you're not paying attention. My bet was as simple as it could be, within 6 months, the USA will launch strikes against Syria. Nut up or shut up.
 
2013-09-14 11:39:56 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.


Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?
 
2013-09-14 11:44:26 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.
 
2013-09-14 11:46:49 PM

freak7: max_pooper: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

I know what bet he is talking about. I want him to lay out specifics. I'm not sure he knows enough about the various potential outcomes to properly detail the terms of this bet.

Now I know you're not paying attention. My bet was as simple as it could be, within 6 months, the USA will launch strikes against Syria. Nut up or shut up.


What do you mean by strike? Bombing raids? Drone attacks? Or does any act of war count like blockades or cyber attacks? Does it count if US aided rebels shell Assad's military installations? Does it count if it's UN envoy in which the US is providing support but not US servicemen doing the actual bombing?

Like I suspected, you do not know enough about the possible outcomes to property detail the terms of this bet.
 
2013-09-14 11:48:48 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.


The list of things freak7 has been shown to be wrong about in this thread keeps getting longer and longer.
 
2013-09-14 11:49:04 PM

Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.


Oh well if they signed an agreement. Lol!
 
2013-09-14 11:51:07 PM

freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: freak7: Heliovdrake: max_pooper: freak7: Take the bet.

What exactly is the bet?

He really wants some total fark, and has been trying to get people to take him up on the bet that we will (the US) engage in some kind of conflict with Syria before the end of this year. He wants 6 months of total fark out of it.

Hes 100% in favor of conflict with Syria btw... hes a little blood thirsty.

Yeah, I'm with Obama. Who are you with, Fox news?

I am with avoiding international conflicts that could further destabilize a region, and very likely kill innocents, not to mention could even possibly send us into further conflict with Iran.

I very much hope that Syria and Assad are willing to make a deal and give up its chemical weapons and allow in inspectors to make sure of it.

You don't want this, you want blood, and to you its not even about sending a message that using chemical weapons is a very bad thing to do. You just want America to get involved in another conflict in the hopes that it will make the President unfavorable.

Iran? So now Iran is a threat? You know how I know you watch Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations

On 16 June 2006 the defence ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however then Syrian defense minister Najjar said "Iran considers Syria's security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria." The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[7] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy.

Oh well if they signed an agreement. Lol!


It is an agreement that you knew nothing about, big suprise.
 
2013-09-14 11:56:11 PM
Iran has been making idle threats for decades, but they're really, really serious this time.
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report