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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Bobby Jindal: 'Obama's a moron for not waging war against Russia'   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Bobby Jindal, President Obama, Russia, Sen. John McCain, intelligence  
•       •       •

1981 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:27 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-10 03:48:55 PM  
Jindal even wonders if Obama's "timidity" is the byproduct of "a bohemian worldview that abhors conflict." Or maybe it stems from "a mushy optimism about a new world order ushered in by technology that adds a measure of leveling to the international playing field."

Translation:

pixel.nymag.com

/Dangerous, war mongering idiots...
 
2014-03-10 03:52:16 PM  

meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?


The largest donor's to their party are part of the MIC and get Billions of dollars in government welfare for useless and uneeded weaponry through no-bid contracts, and if you don't take their money and do want they want, you will crucified in the MSM and they will give Millions to back your opponent.
 
2014-03-10 03:53:05 PM  

guestguy: Jindal even wonders if Obama's "timidity" is the byproduct of "a bohemian worldview that abhors conflict." Or maybe it stems from "a mushy optimism about a new world order ushered in by technology that adds a measure of leveling to the international playing field."

Translation:

[pixel.nymag.com image 480x252]

/Dangerous, war mongering idiots...


Beautiful.
 
2014-03-10 03:58:16 PM  

ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

So... war in Asia good?

No but nice try sweetie.... Land war in Asia no more of a clusterfark than anywhere else.


Other than the fact that we have to deploy troops, equipment, and supplies halfway around the world, yeah, it's NBD.   Okay, we have bases in Turkey, and maybe the Poles might want to cozy up to us, so it's not as much of a clusterfark as driving convoys into Afghanistan through Pakistan, but it's still an expensive and complicated proposition compared to, let's say, invading Panama.  Especially on relatively short notice.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:19 PM  
news flash:  Obama is in fact wrong about doing nothing AND getting too involved.  You can't threaten to get involved and not be serious about it. Should have done nothing at all.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:24 PM  

ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
[www.fbcomics.com image 570x303]


No derp. I first remember hearing that during the Vietnam war, but never saw a real citation. If it's a misquote, it's an old one.

In any case, it was quoted enough for Rob Reiner to use it in Princess Bride. It was a meme before Vizzini said it.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:57 PM  

ScaryBottles: The Jami Turman Fan Club: ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe.  .

.Oh Dear God.  There are actually people who believe this?

No, they don't have anybody who they need to keep fed and safe.  During WWII, they lost 30 million people to starvation.  They simply don't care about that.

And territory?  Who gives a rat's ass about that?  This isn't Risk.

You can send lots of bombers and drones to kill all the civilians you want. It won't even slow them down.  It'll be Afghanistan except 10 times as big, 100 times the army, and winters that make Afghanistan look like Disneyland.  The more you bomb them, the more stubborn they'll become.  They'll resort to nukes almost immediately, and if those fail they'll switch to terrorism.  With suitcase nukes.

The only people who would risk all out war with Russia are are authoritarians hoping that this will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany and idiots who think that using bombs on Russia will somehow prevent New York and Kansas City from being turned into piles of glowing rubble.

The only way to win a war against Russia is to make it so destructive that the will do anything to have it stop.  The Germans tried that and they failed.   We could kill ten million people and it would just make them more obstinate.

Read a book or two on WWII, and see if it helps you understand what it would take to conquer Russia.

Do you not see how this situation might be different than WWII? If not then I'm not the one who needs to c ...


What's different is that now they can nuke us if they start losing. Do you notice how kid gloves we are with Pakistan and North Korea? Well unlike Best Korea, the Russians have missiles they could mount their nuclear devices on that could conceivably hit us. I'm absolutely sure Putin's enough of a dickhead to push the button. Sure, they'll glow brighter than we will in the end, but still an unacceptable outcome.
 
2014-03-10 04:01:49 PM  

Kittypie070: gas giant: Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.
Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.

So what if he ever pulls his head out of his ass? What sound would that make...?


We're in no danger of ever finding out.
 
2014-03-10 04:03:50 PM  

Summercat: What is different between the actions of Bush re Georgia versus Obama re Ukraine?

Yknow, aside that Obama is a Democratic president.

/yes I know. Thats the actual sticking point.
//cue the folk wholl focus on my second line and not my question.


Conservative history has again been retconned. Georgia now happened under Obama's watch. It was his weakness during that crisis that has led to Putin rearing his head over Ukraine.
 
2014-03-10 04:17:32 PM  
Yeah Bobby a word of advice watch this movie and then tell me afterwards if that's a good idea.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-10 04:18:26 PM  

Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

So... war in Asia good?

No but nice try sweetie.... Land war in Asia no more of a clusterfark than anywhere else.

Other than the fact that we have to deploy troops, equipment, and supplies halfway around the world, yeah, it's NBD.   Okay, we have bases in Turkey, and maybe the Poles might want to cozy up to us, so it's not as much of a clusterfark as driving convoys into Afghanistan through Pakistan, but it's still an expensive and complicated proposition compared to, let's say, invading Panama.  Especially on relatively short notice.


Okay guy I'll play along. Do you really think we'll invade? Why occupy territory when its so much easier to send in drones and bombers after we've blown the shiat out of any anti-aircraft batteries they might have from the upper atmosphere? See this where the technological and economic gap starts to matter. No we're not invading shiat, chances are we'll just shell Crimea from 20 miles off the coast after allowing a reasonable period for the civilians to file out of the cites. Meanwhile we won't toss so much as a firecracker within Russia's political borders. As far as your assertion that we can't mobilize fast enough you are aware that we have tens if not hundreds of thousands of personnel just to the south and the only thing between them and the Black Sea is a country we're friendly with. If this whole thing lights up who's side do you think Turkey is going to take?

www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com

But as I said before this all academic it will never reach that point. Sorry pal but not all of us get a stiffy when we watch Red Dawn.
 
2014-03-10 04:22:37 PM  

MrBallou: ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
[www.fbcomics.com image 570x303]

No derp. I first remember hearing that during the Vietnam war, but never saw a real citation. If it's a misquote, it's an old one.

In any case, it was quoted enough for Rob Reiner to use it in Princess Bride. It was a meme before Vizzini said it.


The book The Princess bride where that lines comes from verbatim, was written in the 70's and like I said you are literally the first person I've ever heard say that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but now I'm not so sure I should've.
 
2014-03-10 04:25:31 PM  

ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: MrBallou: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

It was supposedly said by Douglas MacArthur. After the Korean War, he urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia.

Of course, he also found out later that he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.
Wikiquote has that listed as unsourced and considering you are the first I've ever heard attribute it to McArthur (bear in mind I'm not implying you're a derp) I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. There are tons of people who attribute the whole idea we only use 10% of our brain to Einstein or claim that Charles Darwin repudiated all his theories on his deathbed.
[www.fbcomics.com image 570x303]

No derp. I first remember hearing that during the Vietnam war, but never saw a real citation. If it's a misquote, it's an old one.

In any case, it was quoted enough for Rob Reiner to use it in Princess Bride. It was a meme before Vizzini said it.

The book The Princess bride where that lines comes from verbatim, was written in the 70's and like I said you are literally the first person I've ever heard say that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but now I'm not so sure I should've.


/Again proofreading, maybe I should just stick to the gifs.
 
2014-03-10 04:31:35 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Get back to us when you know what volcanoes are and what they do, Bobby.

And we would not want a failure in you in office with access to air strikes.

How the fark did I miss THAT one? Seriously, I would bet that even Sarah Palin can understand why we would 'monitor' volcanoes.


They don't actually exist in most of the lower 48, so I guess he thought that argument was a bird.

And the ones that do exist are all covered in snow or are huge steaming calderas like Yellowstone, and aren't real volcanoes. Those are some hearty people up there in WY. They'll find a way to adapt if it does go up lots of caves up there, which if it did erupt certainly wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.

/and so on
 
2014-03-10 04:38:17 PM  

gas giant: Kittypie070: gas giant: Kittypie070: Stuff it up your ass, Piyush.

Which is the actual sound produced when stuffing things up one's ass.

So what if he ever pulls his head out of his ass? What sound would that make...?

Bobby


that's just cruel, dude.
 
2014-03-10 04:38:33 PM  

phaseolus: SpectroBoy: Up until now I though maybe Jindal was partially sane.

Just another GOP partisan hack I guess.


This incident ...

...demonstrated all anyone needs to know about the man's capability for sane, rational judgment.


Well, if I've learned anything the past two weeks, it's that Republicans value decisive, quick action, regardless of results. Leaders do something that makes other people react. What that something is seems to be irrelevant. By Republican Metrics, his plan was a great success.

Also of I am ever addressing a room full of Republicans, I am going to walk in, light the podium on fire and then put the URL for my superPAC on the projector and walk out while grabbing my dick.

They will be entranced by my leadership qualities.
 
2014-03-10 04:42:25 PM  
I, too, wish WWIII upon us.
 
2014-03-10 04:49:07 PM  
I have a stock phrase that can be a typical goto reposnse to everything that comes out any Conservative's mouth:  "STFU you retarded bag of filth, I do not feel like hearing another lie or demonstration of your ignorance of reality."

I figure it pretty much fits every response appropriate to Republican mouth noises.  It's sort of like a modern day Eliza, that would pass the Turing test for 40% of the US population.
 
2014-03-10 04:50:09 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: ScaryBottles: The Jami Turman Fan Club: ScaryBottles: ScaryBottles: rynthetyn: I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a war between the US and Russia is winnable by either side without one side or the other resorting to nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditu re s

I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do. There are literally dozens of inroads to attack Russia from and they have to defend a vastly larger territory to defend with far fewer resources. They have more people to keep fed and safe.  .

.Oh Dear God.  There are actually people who believe this?

No, they don't have anybody who they need to keep fed and safe.  During WWII, they lost 30 million people to starvation.  They simply don't care about that.

And territory?  Who gives a rat's ass about that?  This isn't Risk.

You can send lots of bombers and drones to kill all the civilians you want. It won't even slow them down.  It'll be Afghanistan except 10 times as big, 100 times the army, and winters that make Afghanistan look like Disneyland.  The more you bomb them, the more stubborn they'll become.  They'll resort to nukes almost immediately, and if those fail they'll switch to terrorism.  With suitcase nukes.

The only people who would risk all out war with Russia are are authoritarians hoping that this will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany and idiots who think that using bombs on Russia will somehow prevent New York and Kansas City from being turned into piles of glowing rubble.

The only way to win a war against Russia is to make it so destructive that the will do anything to have it stop.  The Germans tried that and they failed.   We could kill ten million people and it would just make them more obstinate.

Read a book or two on WWII, and see if it helps you understand what it would take to conquer Russia.

Do you not see how this situation might be different than WWII? If not then I'm not the one ...


Do you really think China is just going to sit still as your little pinup girl throws a tantrum that will destroy an entire continent potentially? I guess some of guys aren't appreciating that war and politics have changed since Napoleonic times. Putin is a lot of things but I doubt he is dumb or reactionary enough to sandwich himself between the two most powerful military forces in the history of the world, both with nuclear arsenals that dwarf his own. I know he rustles your jimmies with the shirtless photos and the fly fishing all but in reality if we wanted to force the issue there would be nothing he could do to stop us. Its just a question of if we have the will or not. Like I said in another thread the other day I'll start pissing my pants when Putie Poot can field even 20% of our resources.
 
2014-03-10 04:52:11 PM  

ScaryBottles: But as I said before this all academic it will never reach that point. Sorry pal but not all of us get a stiffy when we watch Red Dawn.


I thought I made it clear that I was a Princess Bride fan.
 
2014-03-10 04:52:12 PM  

ScaryBottles: No we're not invading shiat, chances are we'll just shell Crimea from 20 miles off the coast after allowing a reasonable period for the civilians to file out of the cites.


Dear insane person, even if we'll forget everything else, you are talking about bombing the territory of your supposed ally, killing untold number of Ukraine's citizens, even if they are currently in disagreement with official Kiev, destroying all they've build and earned through their whole lives. Many of them will not leave the cities, and where would they even go? Where would they return after you've bombed the cities?

You actually have a reasonable number of former Russian and Ukrainian citizens inside your borders. Immigrants, you know. Do you really want a dozen more nine-elevens, now with full support of Russia?

ScaryBottles: Meanwhile we won't toss so much as a firecracker within Russia's political borders.


As if that farking matters for Russia! Russia historically see itself as "Defender of the Slavs"; that's an incredibly powerful emotional trigger for Russians, evolved through endless invasions of foreigners throughout millenia; you starting to kill Russian civilians in the Crimea means that the whole of Russia, all the parties currently disjointed, liberals and conservatives, communists and libertarians, slavophiles and pro-westerners, will unite in a single monolith with the singular goal of waging war unto you, or the whole world if it comes to that, and damn the consequences.

There is no stronger motivation for a Russian to fight than foreigners killing Russian civilians.
 
2014-03-10 04:56:27 PM  
War on Russia would consist of opening up natural gas sales to the world.
 
2014-03-10 05:07:42 PM  

Grahor: ScaryBottles: No we're not invading shiat, chances are we'll just shell Crimea from 20 miles off the coast after allowing a reasonable period for the civilians to file out of the cites.

Dear insane person, even if we'll forget everything else, you are talking about bombing the territory of your supposed ally, killing untold number of Ukraine's citizens, even if they are currently in disagreement with official Kiev, destroying all they've build and earned through their whole lives. Many of them will not leave the cities, and where would they even go? Where would they return after you've bombed the cities?

You actually have a reasonable number of former Russian and Ukrainian citizens inside your borders. Immigrants, you know. Do you really want a dozen more nine-elevens, now with full support of Russia?

ScaryBottles: Meanwhile we won't toss so much as a firecracker within Russia's political borders.

As if that farking matters for Russia! Russia historically see itself as "Defender of the Slavs"; that's an incredibly powerful emotional trigger for Russians, evolved through endless invasions of foreigners throughout millenia; you starting to kill Russian civilians in the Crimea means that the whole of Russia, all the parties currently disjointed, liberals and conservatives, communists and libertarians, slavophiles and pro-westerners, will unite in a single monolith with the singular goal of waging war unto you, or the whole world if it comes to that, and damn the consequences.

There is no stronger motivation for a Russian to fight than foreigners killing Russian civilians.


I'm crazy because I don't think we should be wetting ourselves over a paper tiger strutting around to impress his meathead regressive buddies? If Putin did what you all seem to be getting moist over there wouldn't be a Russia within a few days. I don't mean Russia as a country would be done I mean it would no longer be there. Its super amusing all of guys getting hot and bothered over a potential strike from Russia without considering the realistic consequences of doing so. We have enough nukes to destroy everything everywhere several times over and China isn't too far behind us. Of course I'm making the assumption that Putin has a little more on the ball than you apparently do.
 
2014-03-10 05:11:00 PM  

Kittypie070: that's just cruel, dude.


Just to be clear:
He's the one in abject terror of ever putting his real name on a ballot because of the very idiots he wants voting for him.
The only reason I mock the name is his resentment of it.

/My real name is something most people would expect belongs to a cartoon character, yet I live with it.
 
2014-03-10 05:27:44 PM  

gas giant: My real name is something most people would expect belongs to a cartoon character, yet I live with it.


Your parent named you Yosemite Sam?  Penelope Pitstop?  Mr. Horse?
 
2014-03-10 05:32:17 PM  
This from a guy that tried to fill the ocean in with sand because "Obama wouldn't do it". Hint, it didn't work.
 
2014-03-10 05:36:34 PM  

SpectroBoy: So which is it GOPtards?

Is Obama an empire building bully or a spineless weakling? You really need to pick an insult and stick with it.


Why should they? It works for about 30% of the voting public and that's MORE than half!

/anti-intellectualism!
//or gerrymandering
///dealer's choice
 
2014-03-10 05:37:05 PM  

wxboy: Obama's Bush is a moron for not waging war against Russia

is something I didn't hear in 2008.


God told him it wasn't the right time so he's excused

Next
 
2014-03-10 05:38:34 PM  

stamped human bacon: lilbjorn: offmymeds: Apparently Bobby wants to see the world revert back to the days of the Cold War.

It's good for the 1%, which is the only constituency the GOP gives a shiat about.

I would have thought the days of the Cold War were actually much better for the middle class.  Hmm.


Apparently you're not old enough to remember "Vietnam is good for business.  Invest your sons."
 
2014-03-10 05:39:32 PM  

gas giant: Kittypie070: that's just cruel, dude.

Just to be clear:
He's the one in abject terror of ever putting his real name on a ballot because of the very idiots he wants voting for him.
The only reason I mock the name is his resentment of it.

/My real name is something most people would expect belongs to a cartoon character, yet I live with it.


Holy hells, gas giant, your profile is the most entertaining thing I've read all week.
 
2014-03-10 05:43:31 PM  

Mr. Horse: Your parent named you Yosemite Sam?  Penelope Pitstop?  Mr. Horse?


B.R. Bean at your service, sir.
 
2014-03-10 05:46:10 PM  

Kittypie070: Holy hells, gas giant, your profile is the most entertaining thing I've read all week.


Thanks!
Lots of blasts from the past in there.
 
2014-03-10 05:46:31 PM  
w00t bean
 
2014-03-10 05:46:48 PM  

skykid: Yeah Bobby a word of advice watch this movie and then tell me afterwards if that's a good idea.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 315x462]


Sure just so long as Putin doesn't mind being president of a smoking radioactive crater. Thats what you jabronis seem to be missing here its not that he can't, its that he won't.
 
2014-03-10 05:49:31 PM  
Is it just me or does Bobby Jindal come off as a guy so dumb he has no clue why people make fun of him still for such things as the volcano comment or the "party of stupid" comment? I mean like Paul Ryan levels of lacking self awareness here.
 
2014-03-10 05:51:07 PM  

ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.


Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...
 
2014-03-10 05:54:21 PM  

Ned Stark: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

The Ukraine is in Europe.


Here is you, settled upon the surface of the planet earth, wherever you are posting from: .

Here is the point, in high orbit by the moon: .

I think you might have missed just what the meat of  meat0918's post was
 
2014-03-10 05:55:27 PM  

ScaryBottles: I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do.


Other points in your post aside (and valid though they are), I have to take issue with this point, and provide a counter-example: Health care. Considering how much Americans spend on medical care, you'd think we'd get on the whole better service and longer lifespans on the average out of it. But that's not the case.

I present this statement cautiously, knowing that greater expenditure has almost no correlation with lesser service. However, if that greater expenditure is because of boondoggles, pork, and dubious government contracting, then it's safe to say that with the greater expenditure greater service is highly unlikely. And oh yes, we has the pork. We has  such the pork.
 
2014-03-10 05:59:42 PM  

Empty Matchbook: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...


Once again do you not see how this situation might be different? And once again I guess you missed the part where I said its never going to come to that. If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't don't bother commenting it just makes you look like you're stupid. But by all means keep hiding under the bed to protect yourself from scawy, scawy, yet strangely sexually compelling impotent wannabe autocrat.
 
2014-03-10 06:05:29 PM  
Because that will end well
 
2014-03-10 06:07:01 PM  

ScaryBottles: No cubby if China catches even a hint of the N word Putin will take a nasty fall down the stairs, after he accidentally ingested 1000% of a lethal dose of polonium just before he shot himself in the face six or seven times while cleaning his rifle.


FTFY
 
2014-03-10 06:09:07 PM  

ScaryBottles: Empty Matchbook: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...

Once again do you not see how this situation might be different? And once again I guess you missed the part where I said its never going to come to that. If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't don't bother commenting it just makes you look like you're stupid. But by all means keep hiding under the bed to protect yourself from scawy, scawy, yet strangely sexually compelling impotent wannabe autocrat.


I love the whole "internet prick" routine.  It never gets old.
 
2014-03-10 06:18:56 PM  

Crabs_Can_Polevault: ScaryBottles: I think the U.S. will be just fine. We spend literally almost seven times as much as they do.

Other points in your post aside (and valid though they are), I have to take issue with this point, and provide a counter-example: Health care. Considering how much Americans spend on medical care, you'd think we'd get on the whole better service and longer lifespans on the average out of it. But that's not the case.

I present this statement cautiously, knowing that greater expenditure has almost no correlation with lesser service. However, if that greater expenditure is because of boondoggles, pork, and dubious government contracting, then it's safe to say that with the greater expenditure greater service is highly unlikely. And oh yes, we has the pork. We has  such the pork.


You have a point but we haven't had shiathead derps attacking the military nearly as long as we have health care. Also our military isn't rigged to benefit insurance companies and fark everyone else. Maybe our citizens are unhealthy, our children illiterate and our infrastructure falling apart but the one thing we can still get right is killing people. Where Russia is farked is in the economic and technological arena. They have anti-aircraft weaponry but we have bombers that fly so high it wouldn't make a difference if they are even picked up by radar at all to solve that problem. They have troops dug in but we can shell them from off the coast twenty miles away. At that point all their fortifications which would be the only advantage they have just became one gigantic slaughter house. After they lose position and anti-aircraft capability they're just meat for the drones. All of these can be done via a few consoles in the white house with equipment and ordinance we already have right next door with very little risk to our soldier's lives. This isn't a freaking board game and most of the people in this thread are acting like we're playing Axis and Allies. Putin's forces are literally 50 years technologically behind ours and in the real world that matters. Not to mention China, another thing a lot of people in this thread are ignoring. Do you really think they're just going to throw their hands up and say "well its not my problem" As I said earlier warfare has changed since Napoleon. Yet they say I'm the one who needs to read a book.
 
2014-03-10 06:25:20 PM  

born_yesterday: ScaryBottles: Empty Matchbook: ScaryBottles: Arkanaut: I guess this would technically be a land war in Europe, but this is still a bad idea.

You are aware that adage comes from the book The Princess Bride yes? Its not cribbed from like The Art of War or The Book of the Five Rings or something. It comes from a fantasy/comedy novel and was said by a person who learned the hard way a few pages later he wasn't as smart as he thought he was. So can we give it a rest already.

Yup, because it's fiction that means it's automatically bad advice...

Just look at how well it's gone for everyone else who's tried to invade Russia in the last century and a half...

Once again do you not see how this situation might be different? And once again I guess you missed the part where I said its never going to come to that. If you can't be bothered to read the thread don't don't bother commenting it just makes you look like you're stupid. But by all means keep hiding under the bed to protect yourself from scawy, scawy, yet strangely sexually compelling impotent wannabe autocrat.

I love the whole "internet prick" routine.  It never gets old.


I'm in earnest this time. I'm getting tired of of idiots sprouting wood over what amounts to derp fan fiction.
 
2014-03-10 06:28:10 PM  
Today I learned that it would be possible to turn Russia into a smoking crater without them getting off a single nuke to turn any of our cities into smoking craters in response. I guess we didn't need to spend half of the 20th century worrying about total nuclear annihilation then.
 
2014-03-10 06:35:25 PM  

rynthetyn: Today I learned that it would be possible to turn Russia into a smoking crater without them getting off a single nuke to turn any of our cities into smoking craters in response. I guess we didn't need to spend half of the 20th century worrying about total nuclear annihilation then.


Yeah no one said that. You derps do love to put words in people's mouths don't you. So I guess you think we should just apologize and send them a really nice fruitbasket? Seriously why don't you climb down off your high horse captain and tell us all exactly what you think we should do here.
 
2014-03-10 06:53:26 PM  

wxboy: Obama's Bush is a moron for not waging war against Russia

is something I didn't hear in 2008.


Pooty poot!
 
2014-03-10 07:02:50 PM  
Just for the record everybody I'm firmly against military action over this but I'm sorry by every quantifiable measure Putin would lose in the event of such a confrontation so forgive me if I don't careen headlong into a hysterical fit over the prospect.

We should release just enough of our strategic reserves to crash their burgeoning energy interests. Seriously it would take far less than most people think.
 
2014-03-10 07:03:10 PM  

ScaryBottles: hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?

Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?


Air superiority cannot hold an occupy territory.
 
2014-03-10 07:09:41 PM  

hiker9999: ScaryBottles: hiker9999: meat0918: Obama's affection for the movie the Princess Bride is widely known.

Plus, we're already involved in one land war in Asia, why on god's green Earth would we get involved in another?

I think we should hold off on invading Russia....until wintertime.  Wintertime invasions of Russia always end well, right?

Do you really believe that A: if we went to war it would be fought on the ground not with drones and planes and B: Russia would stand a chance even if we did?

Air superiority cannot hold an occupy territory.


Why would we occupy it? All we need to do is make it too bloody for Putin to hang on to it and we can absolutely do that. We aren't the ones going after new territory so why occupy? Like I just said though why bomb at all when we can destroy their fragile economy which will have the same end result, they are forced to abandon Crimea.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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