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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   After three years of civil war, Syria may partition into an anti-West, Iran-backed West Syria and an anti-West, al Qaeda-backed North Syria   (csmonitor.com) divider line 99
    More: Sad, al-Qaeda, Iran, Assad, civil wars, Washington Institute, Atlantic Council, islamic extremism, Free Syrian Army  
•       •       •

2594 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2014 at 1:34 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-05 02:41:42 PM  
What really frustrated me was the response to the use of Syrian Chemical weapons. For YEARS people in the rest of the world have been biatching about the US going it alone, deciding it was the world cop, etc. (and to be fair, I do agree with them to some extent.)

Then someone uses sarin on civillians.

US: "Holy shiat, we, the world community, cannot allow to let this stand, can we? We've said before that chemical weapon use against civillians is a war crime, and we-"

ALMOST ALL OF EUROPE: "NOT IT!"
 
2014-01-05 02:42:43 PM  

JabbaTheButt: Don't waste any $ on these scum.   Let them fight.


Maybe they'll just destroy each other.
 
2014-01-05 02:43:48 PM  
one of the more powerful rebel factions is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

this group also took over Fallujah and Ramani in Iraq this week.
 
2014-01-05 02:50:42 PM  
Let them create a Western Syria. Have Assad build up his military and weapons in the interim peace, while allowing Al Qaeda to concentrate in Western Syria. Then obliterate Western Syria.

Problem solved.
 
2014-01-05 02:50:58 PM  
I vote we send American men and women to stand between these two groups that hate each other, and make them hate us more.
 
2014-01-05 02:55:35 PM  

Felgraf: What really frustrated me was the response to the use of Syrian Chemical weapons. For YEARS people in the rest of the world have been biatching about the US going it alone, deciding it was the world cop, etc. (and to be fair, I do agree with them to some extent.)

Then someone uses sarin on civillians.

US: "Holy shiat, we, the world community, cannot allow to let this stand, can we? We've said before that chemical weapon use against civillians is a war crime, and we-"

ALMOST ALL OF EUROPE: "NOT IT!"


Europe, we live in a world that has violent enemies, and those enemies have to be neutralized by men with guns. Who's  gonna do it? You, Germany? You, France? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the Afghans, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Sadams death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at UN Assemblies, you want me on that sand, you need me on that sand. We use words like freedom, democracy, liberation. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to nations who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very protection that the US provides, and then questions the manner in which the US provides it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and join an army. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
 
2014-01-05 02:59:04 PM  
This is why the US, the EU, Canada and Australia/NZ need to firmly close their borders!

If all the people who desire peace, freedom and a government that is responsive to their needs in nations like Lebanon, Kenya, Pakistan, Mexico, Nicaragua (etc) move to France, the UK or the US, then there will never be anyone to stand up in these countries as patriots to enact change and stability, and fight against tyrants and warlords.

Illegal immigration and sympathetic immigration (bringing our friends and allies to the US or other Western nations because they are threatened in their homeland) is distorting the cultures of the West, and is at the same time killing the evolution of freedom and justice in other cultures around the world.

So many places that have unique cultures and languages are fading, because it has become easier to run to the US or UK rather than do what is hard--ousting the evil and selfish leaders that plague the 3rd world and thereby making these nations safe, prosperous and just for their citizens.
 
2014-01-05 02:59:47 PM  
What's that? There's trouble in Syria, Lassie? Here is my 'O' face...
s2.stabroeknews.com
 
2014-01-05 03:00:01 PM  
Anti-West West. Rolls off the tongue. Like Halloween-ween
 
2014-01-05 03:05:01 PM  

Darkrover2: This is why the US, the EU, Canada and Australia/NZ need to firmly close their borders!

If all the people who desire peace, freedom and a government that is responsive to their needs in nations like Lebanon, Kenya, Pakistan, Mexico, Nicaragua (etc) move to France, the UK or the US, then there will never be anyone to stand up in these countries as patriots to enact change and stability, and fight against tyrants and warlords.

Illegal immigration and sympathetic immigration (bringing our friends and allies to the US or other Western nations because they are threatened in their homeland) is distorting the cultures of the West, and is at the same time killing the evolution of freedom and justice in other cultures around the world.

So many places that have unique cultures and languages are fading, because it has become easier to run to the US or UK rather than do what is hard--ousting the evil and selfish leaders that plague the 3rd world and thereby making these nations safe, prosperous and just for their citizens.


www.reactionface.info
 
2014-01-05 03:13:44 PM  
The real lesson we need to learn here is that whether we act or not, somebody is going to hate us. Acting is expensive, not acting is not expensive. So let's defend our boarders and cut out all the military adventurism and admit already that this is a subset of the population that we CANNOT win over no matter what we do or do not do.
 
2014-01-05 03:29:01 PM  

m00: ElLoco: Fortunately, they were overstocked on unused muskets and fresh out of surrender flag inventory at the time.

The Kingdom of France was badass militarily. They just had something like 7 revolutions in the 19th century (and all the purges which come with that), which really impacted their military.


And Napoleon was pretty badass.  Early nationalism under competent, audacious leadership made for some pretty powerful armies.

From one of Ringo's books:

"A coalition of the willing, Mr. President," Berg said, still sitting rigidly upright and looking past the President. "Led by the United States and including, at a minimum, Great Britain, China, India and Japan. It is preferred that Germany, some of the other Old Europe countries, the Eastern European block and the Seven Tigers are included as well as certain countries in South America. It should specifically exclude France."
"Exclude the French?" the secretary of state asked.
"Yes, sir," First Sergeant Powell replied. "Though diplomatically difficult, that's actually rather important."

"Explain," the President said, leaning back and putting his hand over his mouth.
"In the two hundred plus years of our country, we have been involved in wars with the French several times," Weaver said reluctantly. "All of them as allies and all but one to our net detriment. Basically, Mr. President, every time the French get involved in anything, they tend to do more damage to their allies than to their enemies. Examples redound but Vietnam, the War on Terror and World Wars One and Two all come to mind."
"In fact, Mr. President, there was significant discussion of what to do on the way back," Spectre finally admitted. "And the last time we can recall the U.S. benefiting from having the French involved with us was in the Revolution."
"Which, I'd like to add, was when they were under the Bourbons," First Sergeant Powell pointed out. "So, basically, if they're willing to bring back the aristos, we'll think about it. Otherwise, our recommendation is that they be excluded."

"Except for the Legion," Miller interjected.
"Yeah, we'll take the Legion," Spectre agreed.
"And we'll take some volunteers if there are any," Berg said, lightening up. "As soldiers, they're fine. It's their politicians and generals that suck. Oh, boy, do they suck." He suddenly whitened as he realized what he'd just said to the President of the United States.

/Seriously, any takers?
//Just saying, there's a reason we called them the Axis of Weasels.
 
2014-01-05 03:30:23 PM  

gnosis301: You can't mix West/East and North/South.  What the fark are these people thinking?


They don't. They are told to do it, and they do it. Or at best they are made a pariah, at worst they are executed.

They have an education system and religious culture that is such a bad fit with western ideals, we generally cannot comprehend it, and they cannot comprehend ours.
 
2014-01-05 03:31:03 PM  
What about the southeast then?

Will they be forgotten like Poland?
 
2014-01-05 03:46:05 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: MrBallou: So Bush's military adventurism in the region didn't solve the problem of anti-American sentiment.

Are you trying to say that Bush 5 years out of office still weilds more power than Fartbongo does while in office?  It's almost as though Fartbongo is utterly useless


We are still playing out the after effects of the Paul Wolfowitz plan.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called "a policy coup" engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon's plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the "coup" being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called "a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century":
Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Why haven't we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?"
He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said - he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk - he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years - we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Clark said the aim of this plot was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz - back in 1991 - in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region - in the Middle East - and the Soviets won't stop us. And we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes - Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq - before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's desires because, as Clark put it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It's not to deter conflicts?"
The current turmoil in the Middle East is driven largely by popular revolts, not by neocon shenanigans. Still, in the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya (the latter leading to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/world/africa/western-companies-see- l ibya-as-ripe-at-last-for-business.html?pagewanted=all">this), with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and Saddam's rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz (or, as he would be called by establishment newspapers: "a person familiar with Jon Schwarz's thinking on the subject who asked not to be identified") put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:
As far as I can tell, there's barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.
The difference between seven and four overt wars isn't non-existent or unimportant, of course, but it's a question of means. The neocon end as Clark reported them - regime change in those seven countries - seems as vibrant as ever. It's just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.
 
2014-01-05 03:51:04 PM  

Heraclitus: Will the Kurds finally get their own state?


No whey.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:24 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-01-05 03:53:26 PM  
That is some mighty fine foreign policy.
 
2014-01-05 03:57:52 PM  

Cuchulane: Smeggy Smurf: MrBallou: So Bush's military adventurism in the region didn't solve the problem of anti-American sentiment.

Are you trying to say that Bush 5 years out of office still weilds more power than Fartbongo does while in office?  It's almost as though Fartbongo is utterly useless

We are still playing out the after effects of the Paul Wolfowitz plan.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called "a policy coup" engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon's plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the "coup" being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called "a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century":
Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Why haven't we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?"
He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said - he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk - he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years - we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Clark said the aim of this plot was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz - back in 1991 - in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region - in the Middle East - and the Soviets won't stop us. And we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes - Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq - before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's desires because, as Clark put it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It's not to deter conflicts?"
The current turmoil in the Middle East is driven largely by popular revolts, not by neocon shenanigans. Still, in the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya (the latter leading to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/world/africa/western-companies-see- l ibya-as-ripe-at-last-for-business.html?pagewanted=all">this), with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and Saddam's rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz (or, as he would be called by establishment newspapers: "a person familiar with Jon Schwarz's thinking on the subject who asked not to be identified") put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:
As far as I can tell, there's barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.
The difference between seven and four overt wars isn't non-existent or unimportant, of course, but it's a question of means. The neocon end as Clark reported them - regime change in those seven countries - seems as vibrant as ever. It's just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.


So you are blaming Wolfowitz for what are foreign policy is now? 5 years into the new admin? Holy Christmas, I don't know what to say. That amount of delusion is hard to argue against. Wow.
 
2014-01-05 03:59:26 PM  
Are=our
 
2014-01-05 04:04:33 PM  
Way to go Obama.
 
2014-01-05 04:05:19 PM  

dready zim: What about the southeast then?

Will they be forgotten like Poland?


You know who else didn't forget about Poland?
 
2014-01-05 04:15:08 PM  

AngryDragon: dready zim: What about the southeast then?

Will they be forgotten like Poland?

You know who else didn't forget about Poland?


Trick question...could be:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

or:
chapleau.us
 
2014-01-05 04:16:16 PM  

meyerkev: m00: ElLoco: Fortunately, they were overstocked on unused muskets and fresh out of surrender flag inventory at the time.

The Kingdom of France was badass militarily. They just had something like 7 revolutions in the 19th century (and all the purges which come with that), which really impacted their military.

And Napoleon was pretty badass.  Early nationalism under competent, audacious leadership made for some pretty powerful armies.

From one of Ringo's books:

"A coalition of the willing, Mr. President," Berg said, still sitting rigidly upright and looking past the President. "Led by the United States and including, at a minimum, Great Britain, China, India and Japan. It is preferred that Germany, some of the other Old Europe countries, the Eastern European block and the Seven Tigers are included as well as certain countries in South America. It should specifically exclude France."
"Exclude the French?" the secretary of state asked.
"Yes, sir," First Sergeant Powell replied. "Though diplomatically difficult, that's actually rather important."
"Explain," the President said, leaning back and putting his hand over his mouth.
"In the two hundred plus years of our country, we have been involved in wars with the French several times," Weaver said reluctantly. "All of them as allies and all but one to our net detriment. Basically, Mr. President, every time the French get involved in anything, they tend to do more damage to their allies than to their enemies. Examples redound but Vietnam, the War on Terror and World Wars One and Two all come to mind."
"In fact, Mr. President, there was significant discussion of what to do on the way back," Spectre finally admitted. "And the last time we can recall the U.S. benefiting from having the French involved with us was in the Revolution."
"Which, I'd like to add, was when they were under the Bourbons," First Sergeant Powell pointed out. "So, basically, if they're willing to bring back the aristos, we'll think about it. Otherwise, ...


I really wish there were more books in this series.
 
2014-01-05 04:28:40 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.


That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.
 
2014-01-05 04:36:11 PM  

dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.


Indeed, how dare we stand in the way of their Bronze Age tribal warfare.
 
2014-01-05 04:41:25 PM  
Anyone can read books about problems.

What do farkers think we should do? I have my own ideas, but they would not be palatable to many.
 
2014-01-05 04:52:33 PM  

JohnnyBravo: So you are blaming Wolfowitz for what are foreign policy is now? 5 years into the new admin? Holy Christmas, I don't know what to say. That amount of delusion is hard to argue against. Wow.


You really don't realize that committing large contingencies of the US military to fight two wars simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan, and having the neocon movement in charge of foreign policy for two terms is going to have ramifications on our foreign policy for decades afterwards? That amount of denial is unfortunately all too common.
 
2014-01-05 04:56:54 PM  
Let France handle it.
 
2014-01-05 05:04:52 PM  
I think we should air drop and blanket the whole Middle East with cooked bacon and spiral sliced ham...

How could they resist?
 
2014-01-05 05:31:30 PM  

JohnnyBravo: Anyone can read books about problems.

What do farkers think we should do? I have my own ideas, but they would not be palatable to many.


Wilson-era doctrine. Don't fark with them, they won't fark with us.

They don't approve of Western influence and meddling? Well, let's stop meddling.
They don't approve of us coming into their sovereign land and killing their natives? Stop invading them.

The majority amount of acrimony aimed at America arises solely from us pushing our whims and wills on their culture.

So let's get the fark out. They've been killing each other there in the name of their skygod for millenia. Let's keep our skygod out of the way.
 
2014-01-05 05:57:56 PM  

croesius: JohnnyBravo: Anyone can read books about problems.

What do farkers think we should do? I have my own ideas, but they would not be palatable to many.

Wilson-era doctrine. Don't fark with them, they won't fark with us.

They don't approve of Western influence and meddling? Well, let's stop meddling.
They don't approve of us coming into their sovereign land and killing their natives? Stop invading them.

The majority amount of acrimony aimed at America arises solely from us pushing our whims and wills on their culture.

So let's get the fark out. They've been killing each other there in the name of their skygod for millenia. Let's keep our skygod out of the way.


So ignore it. Isolationism? And you know what the downside of that policy is? In terms of technology and WMD?

Gas masks and radiation suits for everyone?
 
2014-01-05 06:09:07 PM  

Cuchulane: JohnnyBravo: So you are blaming Wolfowitz for what are foreign policy is now? 5 years into the new admin? Holy Christmas, I don't know what to say. That amount of delusion is hard to argue against. Wow.

You really don't realize that committing large contingencies of the US military to fight two wars simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan, and having the neocon movement in charge of foreign policy for two terms is going to have ramifications on our foreign policy for decades afterwards? That amount of denial is unfortunately all too common.


No amount of convincing will dissuade you of the fact the Bush is the blame.

So may I inquire, wth do we do now? 5 years into the new admin...now what?
 
2014-01-05 06:11:50 PM  

croesius: JohnnyBravo: Anyone can read books about problems.

What do farkers think we should do? I have my own ideas, but they would not be palatable to many.

Wilson-era doctrine. Don't fark with them, they won't fark with us.

They don't approve of Western influence and meddling? Well, let's stop meddling.
They don't approve of us coming into their sovereign land and killing their natives? Stop invading them.

The majority amount of acrimony aimed at America arises solely from us pushing our whims and wills on their culture.

So let's get the fark out. They've been killing each other there in the name of their skygod for millenia. Let's keep our skygod out of the way.


Too late. We'll be branded as cowards and incompetents, running away from a fight and leaving the place a mess.
 
2014-01-05 06:16:45 PM  

Mouser: dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.

Indeed, how dare we stand in the way of their Bronze Age tribal warfare.


You avoid the point - if the lines had been drawn around the groups rather than through them - each faction secure in its own set of borders, we would be a lot closer to a peaceful region.
 
2014-01-05 07:06:18 PM  

dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.


One guy, actually. And he was very hubritic. Churchill was specifically warned when the Sykes-Picot Act was written that it was going to end disastrously; but he'd promised the Saud family a couple of countries in exchange for their support after WWI, and so he went ahead and created Iraq and the Palestinian Mandate. It was crazy stupid even at the time; but hey, have no thought for the morrow, right, milord?
 
2014-01-05 07:06:26 PM  

dionysusaur: Mouser: dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.

Indeed, how dare we stand in the way of their Bronze Age tribal warfare.

You avoid the point - if the lines had been drawn around the groups rather than through them - each faction secure in its own set of borders, we would be a lot closer to a peaceful region.


Armchair quarterbacking. If if if. You are president now. What do you do, given what you know?
 
2014-01-05 07:12:29 PM  
I'm glad we didnt send any of the military over there or bomb the hell out of them. But they didnt have to arm people that hate us in the first place. It would have been over quicker and less people would have been dead.
 
2014-01-05 07:26:22 PM  

JohnnyBravo: dionysusaur: Mouser: dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.

Indeed, how dare we stand in the way of their Bronze Age tribal warfare.

You avoid the point - if the lines had been drawn around the groups rather than through them - each faction secure in its own set of borders, we would be a lot closer to a peaceful region.

Armchair quarterbacking. If if if. You are president now. What do you do, given what you know?


Move the borders as described.  How?  Use the same kind of magical thinking that led Bush the second into Iraq.
 
2014-01-05 07:54:43 PM  

dionysusaur: JohnnyBravo: dionysusaur: Mouser: dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.

Indeed, how dare we stand in the way of their Bronze Age tribal warfare.

You avoid the point - if the lines had been drawn around the groups rather than through them - each faction secure in its own set of borders, we would be a lot closer to a peaceful region.

Armchair quarterbacking. If if if. You are president now. What do you do, given what you know?

Move the borders as described.  How?  Use the same kind of magical thinking that led Bush the second into Iraq.


Very insightful and interesting.
 
2014-01-05 07:59:19 PM  

JohnnyBravo: Cuchulane: Smeggy Smurf: MrBallou: So Bush's military adventurism in the region didn't solve the problem of anti-American sentiment.

Are you trying to say that Bush 5 years out of office still weilds more power than Fartbongo does while in office?  It's almost as though Fartbongo is utterly useless

We are still playing out the after effects of the Paul Wolfowitz plan.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called "a policy coup" engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon's plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the "coup" being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called "a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century":
Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Why haven't we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?"
He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said - he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk - he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years - we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Clark said the aim of this plot was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz - back in 1991 - in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region - in the Middle East - and t ...


Their god can do no wrong otherwise their fantasy world collapses
 
2014-01-05 08:19:05 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: JohnnyBravo: Cuchulane: Smeggy Smurf: MrBallou: So Bush's military adventurism in the region didn't solve the problem of anti-American sentiment.

Are you trying to say that Bush 5 years out of office still weilds more power than Fartbongo does while in office?  It's almost as though Fartbongo is utterly useless

We are still playing out the after effects of the Paul Wolfowitz plan.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called "a policy coup" engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon's plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the "coup" being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called "a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century":
Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Why haven't we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?"
He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said - he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk - he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years - we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Clark said the aim of this plot was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz - back in 1991 - in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region - in the Middle East - and t ...

Their god can do no wrong otherwise their fantasy world collapses


So 5 years of Obama haven't changed a thing? Another insightful, well educated view.
 
2014-01-05 08:23:59 PM  

JohnnyBravo: No amount of convincing will dissuade you of the fact the Bush is the blame.

So may I inquire, wth do we do now? 5 years into the new admin...now what?


He's probably too pussy to post it, but it seems what he really wants is to lynch Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and anyone else he chooses to designate as part of the shadowy right-wing conspiracy, as a peace offering to the Taliban. And when that doesn't work, he would lynch everyone who voted against Obama, and then everyone who voted for Obama but disagrees with his Hanging Orders, and then everyone who doesn't prove they think exactly the way he does, and then everyone except himself.

And when that still doesn't convince the Taliban to make peace, and they lead a Normandy-style invasion to put an end to the genocide while there is still anyone left in America, he'll probably put a bullet in his own head as the armies close in... denying any parallel to anything else in history the entire time.
 
2014-01-05 09:07:43 PM  
Ah so that's what's Happens when US don't mingle, they start fighting ( fisting )  each other ?

I know Im repeating my self but nuke it make it into a parking lot for old airplans or something or just nuke it and make it in to some kind of pain ball park, did I se nuke it ?
 
2014-01-05 09:10:44 PM  

Tatterdemalian: JohnnyBravo: No amount of convincing will dissuade you of the fact the Bush is the blame.

So may I inquire, wth do we do now? 5 years into the new admin...now what?

He's probably too pussy to post it, but it seems what he really wants is to lynch Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and anyone else he chooses to designate as part of the shadowy right-wing conspiracy, as a peace offering to the Taliban. And when that doesn't work, he would lynch everyone who voted against Obama, and then everyone who voted for Obama but disagrees with his Hanging Orders, and then everyone who doesn't prove they think exactly the way he does, and then everyone except himself.

And when that still doesn't convince the Taliban to make peace, and they lead a Normandy-style invasion to put an end to the genocide while there is still anyone left in America, he'll probably put a bullet in his own head as the armies close in... denying any parallel to anything else in history the entire time.


So Obama has to direct the war from inside a bunker and Sarah Palin is automatically Prime Minister of Great Britain.
 
2014-01-05 10:56:17 PM  
I wonder what the islamist ruling party in Turkey thinks of this.  While Al Queda makes them look pretty moderate and not all that religious, the Turks have a history of being secular.  Who wants to have an islamist party in power with religious nuts setting up right on your border.
 
2014-01-05 11:27:35 PM  

Too-Tall: I wonder what the islamist ruling party in Turkey thinks of this.  While Al Queda makes them look pretty moderate and not all that religious, the Turks have a history of being secular.  Who wants to have an islamist party in power with religious nuts setting up right on your border.


From what I've heard, all of the rebel groups are allowed to go to and from Turkey without interference, including the radical Islamist groups.
 
2014-01-06 04:17:41 PM  

Bslim: And now they'll have reunification as reason to fight for another 200  years. These motherfarkers just love messing each other up over bullshiat.


What do they want?

www.wallsave.com
 
2014-01-06 06:15:57 PM  

dionysusaur: JohnnyBravo: dionysusaur: Mouser: dionysusaur: Enemabag Jones: Five hundred years from now the Arab Spring will be looked back on as borders being readjusted on ethnic and religious lines from the nation-states created by Europeans after the Ottoman empire fell.

That.

Those borders were drawn to keep the local factions at each others' throats so the colonial powers could justify staying as peacekeepers.  All of the Wests' problems that have come out of that region trace directly back to that particular episode of EuroWhiteGuy hubris.

Indeed, how dare we stand in the way of their Bronze Age tribal warfare.

You avoid the point - if the lines had been drawn around the groups rather than through them - each faction secure in its own set of borders, we would be a lot closer to a peaceful region.

Armchair quarterbacking. If if if. You are president now. What do you do, given what you know?

Move the borders as described.  How?  Use the same kind of magical thinking that led Bush the second into Iraq.


Have you ever looked at an ethno-sectarian map of Syria?  Or Iraq or Lebanon, for that matter?

Just how do you expect to "move the borders" to make each faction "secure" without widespread ethnic cleansing, if not genocide?
 
Displayed 49 of 99 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