Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Free Beacon)   Vladimir Putin, clearly out of farks to give, sells S-300 missiles to Iran   (freebeacon.com) divider line 133
    More: Scary, Vladimir Putin, Iran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Secretary of State John Kerry, missiles, military threat, state sponsors of terrorism, arms deals  
•       •       •

2441 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
Ab3
2013-09-14 08:17:29 PM  

Heliovdrake: Hope and Change


This comic strip is so not funny!You would think it would hit a decent punchline at least once. I am not even saying this as a liberal or a conservative I am just.... ye gods it's  the MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE of comic strips...
 
2013-09-14 08:47:52 PM  

vygramul: He's such an idiot he got what he wanted while Putin backed down?


Right on schedule.  I recently posted here that it won't be long before we start hearing that Obama never wanted a military strike on Syria.
 
2013-09-14 08:48:16 PM  

Target Builder: clambam:  and why the Russians never quite made it to the moon. Their technology is clumsy and unreliable, and always has been.

The Russians got:

First satellite in space
First animal in space
First man in space
First woman in space
First inhabited space station

The US got the first man on the moon, which hasn't been revisited for many decades, while the Russians built the first space station that was in operation for over a decade and from which we (humans) learned a lot and were able to build a better ISS cooperatively between nations.



First rover on moon and on mars and first to venus. And the list goes on.

People seem to forget that the Russians beat us to pretty much everything in those days other than landing people on the moon.
 
2013-09-14 10:04:45 PM  

crab66: Target Builder: clambam:  and why the Russians never quite made it to the moon. Their technology is clumsy and unreliable, and always has been.

The Russians got:

First satellite in space
First animal in space
First man in space
First woman in space
First inhabited space station

The US got the first man on the moon, which hasn't been revisited for many decades, while the Russians built the first space station that was in operation for over a decade and from which we (humans) learned a lot and were able to build a better ISS cooperatively between nations.


First rover on moon and on mars and first to venus. And the list goes on.

People seem to forget that the Russians beat us to pretty much everything in those days other than landing people on the moon.




But that was the one that counted, as it was an order of difficulty far higher than sending out rudimentary probes. This made it the event to one up us on, and it was the thing they failed at because the true state of their program couldn't (and never did) boost the payload sized needed to start.

Russia has a habit of making things good enough and then producing them in numbers to be feared. This works with rifles and tanks and ships, and even jets to some extent.
Not so much for space exploration vehicles or highly advanced weapon systems.

You've got to be willing to bite the developmental bullet to get those.
 
2013-09-14 10:15:43 PM  
way south:
But that was the one that counted, as it was an order of difficulty far higher than sending out rudimentary probes. This made it the event to one up us on, and it was the thing they failed at because the true state of their program couldn't (and never did) boost the payload sized needed to start.

Russia has a habit of making things good enough and then producing them in numbers to be feared. This works with rifles and tanks and ships, and even jets to some extent.
Not so much for space exploration vehicles or highly advanced weapon systems.


why was it the one that counted? It certainly wasn't the one that gave rise to a lot of the technology we use in space exploration today. TBH - it sounds like it the one that 'counted' because we want it to be the one that counted so we can say the US 'won', but when it comes down to it their work on initial space exploration combined with their work on Mir was a lot more valuable to space exploration than landing on the moon.
 
2013-09-14 10:18:47 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Cuz that's what global villians do, dawg.

Be a real shame if some Stingers ended up in Chechen hands now, wouldn't it?


The Chechens have had Stingers since the mujahideen began sending them to Iran to copy after they ran the Soviets out of Afghanistan the first time. Ours.
 
2013-09-14 10:44:15 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: El Pachuco: How dare a sovereign nation make it slightly more difficult for Israel to bomb them. It's like that girl who dressed kinda slutty, but then she had mace so you couldn't rape her so easily - entirely her fault.

Yep.  While I agree with you, keep in mind that Iran is pretty openly arming tons of terrorist groups that have no problem with attacking civilian targets in Israel.


Now why would they want to do that?  The Iranian reason why, not the strawman why we see in US media.  Why would Iran do that?
 
2013-09-14 10:44:47 PM  

paygun: vygramul: He's such an idiot he got what he wanted while Putin backed down?

Right on schedule.  I recently posted here that it won't be long before we start hearing that Obama never wanted a military strike on Syria.


He wanted the military strike as a means to an end. He got the end he wanted. He doesn't care about the means. You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference.
 
2013-09-14 10:47:18 PM  

Smackledorfer: jjorsett: vpb: AngryDragon: Who cares?  The more armed to the teeth they are over there the better.  As long as we stay out of it.  Let them blow each other to hell.

Oh, and am I to assume that arming third parties is only insidious military dick waving when THEY do it?

The Israelis have nukes, they can handle it for us.  That's why we give them all that military aid right?

The S-300 is an air defense missile, and it makes it tougher for anyone to "handle it," nukes or not. The next time Obama thinks about attacking Syria, if these are in place we might lose some aircraft, and more importantly, pilots. That's one reason to care.

Aircraft are worth more than pilots. Large sums of money, like a jet, can save more than one life.

I expect people to shiat all over me for saying this.


It's positively Un'Murican!
 
2013-09-14 11:02:48 PM  

El Pachuco: Now why would they want to do that? The Iranian reason why, not the strawman why we see in US media. Why would Iran do that?


Because they don't like Israel?

Wait, are you actually trying to imply that Iran DOESN'T arm terrorist groups?
 
2013-09-14 11:22:50 PM  

Spare Me: vpb: jjorsett: Is it your customary habit to ignore verifiable facts when they're reported by a source that you don't like?

If it's an unreliable source yes.  If it's correct then real news organizations will report it.

Remember when the National Inquirer exposed John Edwards? Oh the irony, it only took a year and a half for the "real news organizations" to even look at it.


Apparently you missed their HUGE expose on false equivalencies!
 
2013-09-14 11:56:05 PM  

vygramul: paygun: vygramul: He's such an idiot he got what he wanted while Putin backed down?

Right on schedule.  I recently posted here that it won't be long before we start hearing that Obama never wanted a military strike on Syria.

He wanted the military strike as a means to an end. He got the end he wanted. He doesn't care about the means. You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference.


I guess that's why he said from the beginning that he wanted Syria to hand over their chemical weapons to Russia.  lol
 
2013-09-14 11:56:09 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: So... the U.S. hasn't been relying on Russia to lift payloads into space for the last 5 years?

Please enlighten me.


img818.imageshack.us
You are referring to ferrying astronauts to the ISS in low-earth orbit and ignoring the rest of the space program.
NASA's budget has been declining since 1966, and it is controlled by congress. Do you really think Presidents control the budget?
 
2013-09-15 12:14:28 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: El Pachuco: Now why would they want to do that? The Iranian reason why, not the strawman why we see in US media. Why would Iran do that?

Because they don't like Israel?

Wait, are you actually trying to imply that Iran DOESN'T arm terrorist groups?


[eyeroll]

Iran bankrolls terrorists (or "insurgents") for the same reason the US does. And for the same reason we supported fascist thugs in the 70's and 80's so long as they professed themselves to be anti-Communist. One ALWAYS supports one's allies under the somewhat dubious theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." (Which is usually wrong; the enemy of your enemy is usually just not your enemy yet, at least not until your money runs out; but have no thought for the morrow)

Yes, Iran hates Israel. Yes, they'd be happy if Israel were to suddenly vanish. But Iran has a great deal to lose if the balance of power were to shift in the Middle East, and nothing at all to gain with an open war with Israel, mostly because, being the focus of Shi'a Islam, they are surrounded quite literally by Sunni Muslims who mostly  hate them. If Israel--the focus of Muslim hate in the region--were to disappear, the next logical target would be Iran, as the most visible stronghold of Shi'ite Muslims.

But of course, since Americans think "all them Mooslimbs are the same" and can't fathom the genuine tribal hatreds going on in Islam, the idea that, for instance, the only thing keeping Pakistan and Iraq from uniting against Iran is their mutual hatred of Israel is just too much to parse.
 
2013-09-15 12:20:00 AM  

Target Builder: way south:
But that was the one that counted, as it was an order of difficulty far higher than sending out rudimentary probes. This made it the event to one up us on, and it was the thing they failed at because the true state of their program couldn't (and never did) boost the payload sized needed to start.

Russia has a habit of making things good enough and then producing them in numbers to be feared. This works with rifles and tanks and ships, and even jets to some extent.
Not so much for space exploration vehicles or highly advanced weapon systems.

why was it the one that counted? It certainly wasn't the one that gave rise to a lot of the technology we use in space exploration today. TBH - it sounds like it the one that 'counted' because we want it to be the one that counted so we can say the US 'won', but when it comes down to it their work on initial space exploration combined with their work on Mir was a lot more valuable to space exploration than landing on the moon.




Its a sour grapes argument.

Going to the moon needed Heavy lift space vehicles four times more powerful than the biggest Russian launchers. It required very accurate and portable Internal navigation and electronic flight control computers. We had to develop the suits, tools, skills and all of the extras it takes to not only launch from earth but to also launch a rocket from moon with no outside intervention. Doing it right the first time, every time.

Sometime after you're done launching the first satellite, dog, man, woman, and block of cheese you've got to advance your game to the next step.
The technology to send men somewhere and bring them back seems like a simple task now, but without this capability the continued exploration or militarization of space would be impossible. It was an obvious hurdle the Russians failed to clear when their heavy lift rockets started going boom.

As a result their program was trapped in orbit. They could only dock a few capsules together and call it a station, with modules small enough to fit inside Skylab or a shuttle cargo bay.

They found a good design in Soyuz, but one good thing doesn't get you anywhere. They needed to keep pushing boundaries.
 
2013-09-15 12:24:09 AM  

paygun: vygramul: paygun: vygramul: He's such an idiot he got what he wanted while Putin backed down?

Right on schedule.  I recently posted here that it won't be long before we start hearing that Obama never wanted a military strike on Syria.

He wanted the military strike as a means to an end. He got the end he wanted. He doesn't care about the means. You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference.

I guess that's why he said from the beginning that he wanted Syria to hand over their chemical weapons to Russia.  lol


What are you, 12?
 
2013-09-15 12:31:48 AM  

Brick-House: BOB


I'm f*cking serious. Stop that. It invalidates your arguments and makes you look like an idiot. I've seen you display some genuine wit now and then, but you're wasting it the rest of the time.

Do you like looking like an idiot, or do you wanna earn kitty's respect?
 
2013-09-15 12:45:13 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: Libya fiasco?


Fiasco?

A dictator was toppled without one American boot on the ground at a cost that wouldn't pay for a day in Iraq. If anything Libya was an example of American foreign policy done right in the region.

Just because RW news sources repeat something endlessly for year on end doesn't mean it isn't complete and utter BS.
 
2013-09-15 12:56:45 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: How did Obama find the money to pay for the 'leading from behind' Libya fiasco?  Congress didn't have anything to do with it, that's for sure.  That billion dollars (chump change, right?) had to come from SOMEWHERE, didn't it?

Like, where did it come from?


/what could NASA do with an extra BILLION dollars?


Are you suggesting that money spent on Libya would have gone to NASA? Seriously?
Presidential powers allow for some leeway in foreign policy but NASA funding is under congressional control.
If you want to talk about Libya I think you are in the wrong thread. If you think NASA is underfunded then you and I agree. NASA's funding has been decreasing for decades under several administrations. Like it or not, NASA's heyday was at the height of the cold war when the "space race" was a form of brinkmanship. The international political climate has changed and investment in huge rockets is no longer a priority, but the USA is doing wonders with remotely controlled vehicles, such as the Mars Rover and UAVs.

Greece has had the Russian S-300 air defense system since 1998. The S-300 program dates back to 1978, under the Soviets. Two congressmen writing a letter about the S-300 doesn't constitute an emergency. Iran and the Russians have been going around and around on this proposed sale for six years, and Iran has sued the Russian national military export company for non-delivery/breach of contract. The Russians may cobble something together for Iran, in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, and access to favorable oil deals.
 
2013-09-15 01:38:14 AM  

vygramul: What are you, 12?


I guess I'm just gullible enough to take John Kerry on his word:   http://www.trust.org/item/20130909200515-5ncvm
 
2013-09-15 01:40:56 AM  
Here's another piece of the brilliant Obama/Kerry strategy.  It's either one of the most carefully orchestrated political moves ever, well either that or it's just what it appears to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_KBRJYQyY
 
2013-09-15 02:06:52 AM  

red5ish: Greece has had the Russian S-300 air defense system since 1998. The S-300 program dates back to 1978, under the Soviets. Two congressmen writing a letter about the S-300 doesn't constitute an emergency. Iran and the Russians have been going around and around on this proposed sale for six years, and Iran has sued the Russian national military export company for non-delivery/breach of contract. The Russians may cobble something together for Iran, in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, and access to favorable oil deals.


There's several dozen versions of the S-300 series, you know.  It's not like it's unchanged since the 70's.
 
2013-09-15 03:06:01 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: red5ish: Greece has had the Russian S-300 air defense system since 1998. The S-300 program dates back to 1978, under the Soviets. Two congressmen writing a letter about the S-300 doesn't constitute an emergency. Iran and the Russians have been going around and around on this proposed sale for six years, and Iran has sued the Russian national military export company for non-delivery/breach of contract. The Russians may cobble something together for Iran, in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, and access to favorable oil deals.

There's several dozen versions of the S-300 series, you know.  It's not like it's unchanged since the 70's.


I know, and every client country gets a different version. The Russians, a few years ago, took apart the units intended for Iran when the the UN was enforcing sanctions against Iran, and the Russians have used that to defend themselves in the lawsuit over non-delivery. Now the Russians don't have an Iranian version and may build or cobble together a new one if they intend to go through with the sale. My point is that this controversy about selling the S-300 to Iran has been going on for six years. That these two congressmen have written a letter at this point in time is of little or no importance. The author of the article is a pro-Israel extremist and has blown the importance of this very minor event out of proportion. I imagine the congressmen came up with the idea over drinks and had a press release sent to every name on a long list of news outlets. Only this guy thought it was news.
 
2013-09-15 03:51:02 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Satanic_Hamster: El Pachuco: Now why would they want to do that? The Iranian reason why, not the strawman why we see in US media. Why would Iran do that?

Because they don't like Israel?

Wait, are you actually trying to imply that Iran DOESN'T arm terrorist groups?

[eyeroll]

Iran bankrolls terrorists (or "insurgents") for the same reason the US does. And for the same reason we supported fascist thugs in the 70's and 80's so long as they professed themselves to be anti-Communist. One ALWAYS supports one's allies under the somewhat dubious theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." (Which is usually wrong; the enemy of your enemy is usually just not your enemy yet, at least not until your money runs out; but have no thought for the morrow)

Yes, Iran hates Israel. Yes, they'd be happy if Israel were to suddenly vanish. But Iran has a great deal to lose if the balance of power were to shift in the Middle East, and nothing at all to gain with an open war with Israel, mostly because, being the focus of Shi'a Islam, they are surrounded quite literally by Sunni Muslims who mostly  hate them. If Israel--the focus of Muslim hate in the region--were to disappear, the next logical target would be Iran, as the most visible stronghold of Shi'ite Muslims.

But of course, since Americans think "all them Mooslimbs are the same" and can't fathom the genuine tribal hatreds going on in Islam, the idea that, for instance, the only thing keeping Pakistan and Iraq from uniting against Iran is their mutual hatred of Israel is just too much to parse.


No no no.  It's simply because Iran hates Israel for no reason at all, like he said, and like the US media always tells us.  You Do. Not. Need to think any deeper about the why.
 
2013-09-15 04:33:06 AM  

paygun: Here's another piece of the brilliant Obama/Kerry strategy.  It's either one of the most carefully orchestrated political moves ever, well either that or it's just what it appears to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_KBRJYQyY


I dunno....after half a dozen of Obama's henchmen speaking off the cuff about key policy decisions that wound up being EXACTLY what the administration subsequently did, I'm becoming convinced Obama is the most brilliant scriptwriter and genius troll ever to sit in the Oval Office.

"Hey, Joe, I need to test America's opinion about gay rights before I repeal DOMA and DADT. Make some casual remark about being gay, okay?"
"John, make a long impassioned speech about why we need to bomb Syria, then drop in a line about the way we're not going to do it. Get the heat off me."
"Sue, this is going to hurt, but I need you to appear misspeak on Benghazi, so the dummies will attack your nom for Secretary. I need you for National Security Adviser instead."

Genius!
 
2013-09-15 04:35:30 AM  
Just checking in with you politics tab morons, and holy shiat was this thread full of asinine comments and trolls. New low for Fark.
 
2013-09-15 08:12:42 AM  

paygun: Here's another piece of the brilliant Obama/Kerry strategy.  It's either one of the most carefully orchestrated political moves ever, well either that or it's just what it appears to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_KBRJYQyY


"Assad can go fark himself."

Russia has issued a statement that Assad has agreed to go fark himself. Putin says he has brokered a deal that will see the self-farking through, and that the UN will videotape the whole thing and sell the video under the Vivid Video label.

"When I said Assad can go fark himself, I didn't mean it as an actual proposal. That he said he'll go and do it doesn't mean I think he'll follow through, but I think it's a great idea. His track record of making realistic statements aren't great, but if he actually does indeed go fark himself, everyone will be quite pleased."

Paygun, in the meantime, has decided this self-farking is a total win for Putin and Assad, as self-farking is apparently considered by some to be quite enjoyable.
 
2013-09-15 09:54:12 AM  

El Pachuco: No no no. It's simply because Iran hates Israel for no reason at all, like he said, and like the US media always tells us. You Do. Not. Need to think any deeper about the why.


Never said "no reason at all."  But to claim that Iran doesn't fund terrorist and insurgent groups and it's all a smear campaign by the media is just moronic.
 
2013-09-15 11:57:38 AM  

vygramul: "Assad can go fark himself."


You're right, that video never happened.  It must be another vast right-wing conspiracy.
 
2013-09-15 01:32:20 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: El Pachuco: No no no. It's simply because Iran hates Israel for no reason at all, like he said, and like the US media always tells us. You Do. Not. Need to think any deeper about the why.

Never said "no reason at all."  But to claim that Iran doesn't fund terrorist and insurgent groups and it's all a smear campaign by the media is just moronic.


I'm not claiming that in the slightest - you presented that strawman and I ignored it.

But I won't do that to you - are you saying that the reasons why Iran might want to support anti-Israeli resistance movements is a topic thoroughly discussed and examined in the US media?  In my opinion, that question is dismissed as "they just hate teh jooz to pieces" without any further examination, which makes it easy for you to use it as a reason why Iran should not have air defense capabilities against an Israeli act of war.

"What's wrong with Iran buying anti-air missiles from Russia?"
"It would make it harder for Israel to attack Iran."
"Okay, so?"
"Well, Iran gives money and small arms to the Palestinian resistance."
"...and for that they should remain vulnerable to Israeli airstrikes?"
"Yes! "
"Well, why on earth would the Iranians risk all that just to support a resistance movement?"
"Because they hate Israel.  End of story.  Nothing more to see here, move along."
 
2013-09-15 01:57:52 PM  

El Pachuco: Satanic_Hamster: El Pachuco: No no no. It's simply because Iran hates Israel for no reason at all, like he said, and like the US media always tells us. You Do. Not. Need to think any deeper about the why.

Never said "no reason at all."  But to claim that Iran doesn't fund terrorist and insurgent groups and it's all a smear campaign by the media is just moronic.

I'm not claiming that in the slightest - you presented that strawman and I ignored it.

But I won't do that to you - are you saying that the reasons why Iran might want to support anti-Israeli resistance movements is a topic thoroughly discussed and examined in the US media?  In my opinion, that question is dismissed as "they just hate teh jooz to pieces" without any further examination, which makes it easy for you to use it as a reason why Iran should not have air defense capabilities against an Israeli act of war.

"What's wrong with Iran buying anti-air missiles from Russia?"
"It would make it harder for Israel to attack Iran."
"Okay, so?"
"Well, Iran gives money and small arms to the Palestinian resistance."
"...and for that they should remain vulnerable to Israeli airstrikes?"
"Yes! "
"Well, why on earth would the Iranians risk all that just to support a resistance movement?"
"Because they hate Israel.  End of story.  Nothing more to see here, move along."


I am with you on this one.  The number of people who don't even bother to figure out why people and countries do what they do is absurd.

Not only is your average criminal not the evil dog deserving to be put down, but there is no way entire countries are full of them.  People vastly underestimate their ability to remain morally/ethically superior if put in the same circumstances as others.  

We have farkers posting in this very thread who are convinced that no muslim or arab, by way of religion and ethnicity, could possibly govern themselves or be accepting of other cultures. Meanwhile these people have had all the benefits of growing up in a peaceful place with a strong middle class, secluded from a lifetime of skirmishes between cultures, and still can't overcome the very things they would critique the arab/muslim nations for.

Which obviously is not to say one should accept bad behavior, but you can't fix it if you don't understand it.
 
2013-09-15 02:58:26 PM  

paygun: vygramul: "Assad can go fark himself."

You're right, that video never happened.  It must be another vast right-wing conspiracy.


That's exactly what that video said. But, then, reality has a liberal bias. So go ahead and continue to make shiat up while tears stream down your face and snot bubbles out of your knows because people won't just accept your wishful thinking as reality.
 
2013-09-15 06:06:30 PM  
Oh...now just what the heck am I gonna Farky paygun with??

Anybody got any suggestions? I'm tapped.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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