Syria Uproar?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357662/rand-pauls-war-robert-costa?splash=

Really starting to like this dude.

He isn’t his father, but seems to share most of the good stuff and not so much of the bad stuff. [/quote]

Agreed. Whaddya think the chances would be for “Paul in '16”, if it was Rand, not Ron?

And let’s be honest, Dad would probably be doing a fair bit of advising behind the scenes. [/quote]

Brings up a good point. Who is going to run against Hitlery in '16? We already know the American people are willing to vote for a Black President at least partly because he’s PC. How many Americans will do the same for a female President who wouldn’t get her husband a bj?

Do the Repub’s even have someone worthwhile, anywhere? We already know an Independent won’t get jack all for votes.

202

I find it most interesting that the method of defense by a country provoked is not to fight militarily, but terroristically (word?). That in and of itself shows that intents of that region. They won’t go after the soldiers they’ll go after the families.

I think Obama just stuck his dick in a hornet’s nest and I’m willing to bet he’s going to back down. He’ll risk the typical American, but not one of his own. Big difference. And he’ll look weak because of it. Iran is playing a game and testing the backbone of the American government, and I think they know what will happen.

The US will be embarassed after this is done.

203

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I find it most interesting that the method of defense by a country provoked is not to fight militarily, but terroristically (word?). That in and of itself shows that intents of that region. They won’t go after the soldiers they’ll go after the families.

I think Obama just stuck his dick in a hornet’s nest and I’m willing to bet he’s going to back down. He’ll risk the typical American, but not one of his own. Big difference. And he’ll look weak because of it. Iran is playing a game and testing the backbone of the American government, and I think they know what will happen.

The US will be embarassed after this is done.[/quote]

I disagree.

I think O-bomb-a risks his insanely huge ego on this.

Think about it, his entire life, he has been surrounded by people who kissed his ass and told him how great he is.

You think he can handle being told he is wrong ?

I say FUCK NO.

204

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Brings up a good point. Who is going to run against Hitlery in '16? We already know the American people are willing to vote for a Black President at least partly because he’s PC. How many Americans will do the same for a female President who wouldn’t get her husband a bj?

Do the Repub’s even have someone worthwhile, anywhere? We already know an Independent won’t get jack all for votes.[/quote]

I think we can perhaps get a hint from the name of Rand Paul’s official campaign website. .

He’s obviously thinking of running.

205

Thoughts on this post from someone on another forum. Just curious as to what people think of the logic:

You know whatever the situation is: Whether OBAMA put his foot in his mouth or we are broke and can’t pay for this. The one thing I am sure of is that if we don’t strike, this will embolden IRAN and its allies. We will look like p%ssies with no creditability. Now, let me clarify I don’t agree that this should be the situation and we should have this mind frame. I agree with the notion of dealing with our own problems, but we became the world police a long time ago and is the one key reason for our political influence in the world. We protect and bled for S. korea, taiwan, israel, kuwait, the saudis, etc; So that dice has already been rolled. It is almost an impossible situation because there is no doubt in my mind that IRAN will not remain neutral if we strike. I am not saying they will immediately put boots on ground, but all the ingredients are right in the simmer to make an explosion. We are living in troubled times. The conflict is inevitable whether tomorrow, six months from now, or later.

206

1024×768 202 KB

Incredibly, a lot of Americans didn’t get the joke.

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Thoughts on this post from someone on another forum. Just curious as to what people think of the logic:

You know whatever the situation is: Whether OBAMA put his foot in his mouth or we are broke and can’t pay for this. The one thing I am sure of is that if we don’t strike, this will embolden IRAN and its allies. We will look like p%ssies with no creditability. Now, let me clarify I don’t agree that this should be the situation and we should have this mind frame. I agree with the notion of dealing with our own problems, but we became the world police a long time ago and is the one key reason for our political influence in the world. We protect and bled for S. korea, taiwan, israel, kuwait, the saudis, etc; So that dice has already been rolled. It is almost an impossible situation because there is no doubt in my mind that IRAN will not remain neutral if we strike. I am not saying they will immediately put boots on ground, but all the ingredients are right in the simmer to make an explosion. We are living in troubled times. The conflict is inevitable whether tomorrow, six months from now, or later.
[/quote]

Sounds like a dumbed-down version of the Domino Theory.

We enter other people’s fights imagining that our presence will exert a stabilizing influence, but we end up making a bad situation worse. What if we had allowed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait? He’d have Kuwait, and we wouldn’t have a billion Muslims pissed off at us for occupying Saudi Arabia. Maybe no 9/11. Who knows.

What if we had allowed the Vietnamese to kick the French out and run their own country? Would they have become Communist, and with them Laos and Cambodia? Yes, but that happened anyway. The Vietnamese are none the worse for wear today, but our country is still licking the wounds of that war socially and politically.

What if we had stayed out of the First World War? Well, it might have ended sooner, and without such a huge and crushing defeat for Germany, which might have meant no rise of the Nazi party.

We could play this game all day, and it would get us nowhere.

The bottom line is, when you find yourself with a desire to stick your dick in a hornet’s nest, the thing to do is to not stick your dick in the hornet’s nest. It doesn’t make you a pussy, and it doesn’t lose you any credibility. What makes you look stupid is to go ahead and stick it in, then keep fucking away at it for years, banging on it with a stick for good measure. What makes you look REALLY stupid is after you’ve been stung all over your dick and the rest of your body, to then go looking for other hornet’s nests to fuck, telling yourself that THIS time it’ll be great.

Iran can’t possibly do more damage in the region than we will. We ought to keep it in our pants this time.

207

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I find it most interesting that the method of defense by a country provoked is not to fight militarily, but terroristically (word?). That in and of itself shows that intents of that region. They won’t go after the soldiers they’ll go after the families.

I think Obama just stuck his dick in a hornet’s nest and I’m willing to bet he’s going to back down. He’ll risk the typical American, but not one of his own. Big difference. And he’ll look weak because of it. Iran is playing a game and testing the backbone of the American government, and I think they know what will happen.

The US will be embarassed after this is done.[/quote]

I’d be curious if he goes in for the sake of his ego and then the threats came true. I couldn’t imagine the repercussions if all the claims (that I think are bluffs, that’s a pretty bold threat, especially to do it to every one of them) came true. Reminds me of the Joker saying he was going to kill cops until Batman turned himself in, its just like the movies!

I also read on said other forum that Obama made some speech recently stating that Congress was wrong and so was the world, or something along those lines. I’m only catching bits and pieces, but if he did say that, he’s doing a great job of making friends.

I disagree.

I think O-bomb-a risks his insanely huge ego on this.

Think about it, his entire life, he has been surrounded by people who kissed his ass and told him how great he is.

You think he can handle being told he is wrong ?

I say FUCK NO.[/quote]

208

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Thoughts on this post from someone on another forum. Just curious as to what people think of the logic:

You know whatever the situation is: Whether OBAMA put his foot in his mouth or we are broke and can’t pay for this. The one thing I am sure of is that if we don’t strike, this will embolden IRAN and its allies. We will look like p%ssies with no creditability. Now, let me clarify I don’t agree that this should be the situation and we should have this mind frame. I agree with the notion of dealing with our own problems, but we became the world police a long time ago and is the one key reason for our political influence in the world. We protect and bled for S. korea, taiwan, israel, kuwait, the saudis, etc; So that dice has already been rolled. It is almost an impossible situation because there is no doubt in my mind that IRAN will not remain neutral if we strike. I am not saying they will immediately put boots on ground, but all the ingredients are right in the simmer to make an explosion. We are living in troubled times. The conflict is inevitable whether tomorrow, six months from now, or later.
[/quote]

America has been backing the opposition for a long time whether it’s been via a third party or directly. Chemical weapons were just something meant to legitimize military action. Since this a shit show Obama is waiting for congress to back him so him, his party and his administration wont have to shoulder all of the blame. Realistically losing Syria as an ally for Iran only means it’ll continue to fund fighters in the country to install a pro-Iranian/Shia government and it’ll have to step up its nuclear program to gain a greater bargaining chip on the international level.

With Libya no nations could really oppose ousting Gaddafi. You don’t think nations maintained influence through Libya? Russia did, Russia just knew people wanted Gaddafi out and there’s a golden opportunity for it. With Syria they can oppose it with more weight behind it. Did Russia attack nations because of it? No, it’s all little fuck-fuck games. You guys need to come to the realization that the world is like high school. It’s different cliques trying to sit at the cool kids table.

209

Maybe the U.S. should invade the U.S.

That way we can build bridges and roads, hospitals and schools.

Give the locals jobs and make everybody love America.

/Problem?

210

I am so sick of our broke asses trying to act tough. It’s like the guy that gets laid off from his 500K a year broker job and then goes to the bahamas on vacation for a month. Pathetic.

We are trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq and we cannot even rebuild Detroit.

It’s time to realize, our credit cards are maxed.

211

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I am so sick of our broke asses trying to act tough. It’s like the guy that gets laid off from his 500K a year broker job and then goes to the bahamas on vacation for a month. Pathetic.

We are trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq and we cannot even rebuild Detroit.

It’s time to realize, our credit cards are maxed.[/quote]

Well, it’s easier to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan than Detroit. Detroit has a fatal flaw, it’s citizens. Crazy, muslim fuck-wads are far easier to deal with, at least they are predictable.

212

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I am so sick of our broke asses trying to act tough. It’s like the guy that gets laid off from his 500K a year broker job and then goes to the bahamas on vacation for a month. Pathetic.

We are trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq and we cannot even rebuild Detroit.

It’s time to realize, our credit cards are maxed.[/quote]

We spread ourselves too thin in the name of being the world’s babysitter.

213

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

So full scale invasion of Syria! Who’s with me?? No one? Not a single person? Oh well. Bottomline, you want a good outcome for the U.S., that’s your real, unsugar-coated answer.[/quote]

Even with all of that it wouldn’t guarantee a good outcome. The middle easterners hold grudges for centuries.

We as a nation could be dissolved and reformed and they would still hate us for the rest of existence.
[/quote]

Well, in the fact that you can never really know what the outcome of anything is, you are right. However, if we get involved in Syria, and want to do it right, I don’t see any other way to get a favorable outcome other than full scale war and invasion. Besides, we have had a couple of runs at it by now, and should be much better at it next time around.

I think we just need to face facts, here. Syria is a royal mess. You have a government that is clearly evil, and you have a rebel fighting force that ain’t much better. Neither side cares nor is interested in the outcome for the people of Syria and a functioning viable, and peaceful country.

Nobody likes the fact that we are the world police, myself included. However, you can’t do anything about that now. So rather than whine and complain about it, we make lemonade with the lemons we got.

Our recent history basically tells us that we have a moral obligation to get involved militarily when their is a wholesale slaughter of people who cannot help themselves. We just do that. Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Forget about the hundreds of black ops we have going on in places like Sudan and Ethiopia, and God knows where else.
So this is who we are and what we do… So we can just stop, or we can be the enforcer when it comes to mass atrocity.

It’s a personal dilemma for me, because I hate to see people suffer and I want to stop it for them. the Syrians cannot help themselves.

So if we look at the basic facts of Syria, you have the wholesale murder of thousands. A civil war with no end in sight, a rebellion that isn’t much better than the government they are trying to overthrow.
The outcomes of doing something vs. doing nothing is difficult to tell. Either way, the country will still choose to be an enemy of the U.S., a strategic partner for Iran, China and Russia, and a hotbed for terrorism.
This ‘shot across the bow’ idea of Obama’s has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. EVERYBODY knows, you don’t draw your weapon unless you intend to use it. It’s never a warning.

Really, I think full scale invasion of Syria is the BEST option. It’s a military option with a clear cut objective. We know what we want out of it and we can achieve it.

Honestly, if we are going to stick our noses in it, this is what I favor. Complete control over the situation.

I think obama is clearly out of his league with Syria. He doesn’t know what to do, how to do it, or what he even wants. Lobbing a couple of missiles at them is just stupid. If we go in, got all in, or stay all out.

Yeah, maybe it’s none of our business, but that ‘none of our business’ ship has sailed decades ago. I don’t think it’s worth discussing anymore really. It’s never coming back to harbor. Maybe it should, but it won’t.

214

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Thoughts on this post from someone on another forum. Just curious as to what people think of the logic:

You know whatever the situation is: Whether OBAMA put his foot in his mouth or we are broke and can’t pay for this. The one thing I am sure of is that if we don’t strike, this will embolden IRAN and its allies. We will look like p%ssies with no creditability. Now, let me clarify I don’t agree that this should be the situation and we should have this mind frame. I agree with the notion of dealing with our own problems, but we became the world police a long time ago and is the one key reason for our political influence in the world. We protect and bled for S. korea, taiwan, israel, kuwait, the saudis, etc; So that dice has already been rolled. It is almost an impossible situation because there is no doubt in my mind that IRAN will not remain neutral if we strike. I am not saying they will immediately put boots on ground, but all the ingredients are right in the simmer to make an explosion. We are living in troubled times. The conflict is inevitable whether tomorrow, six months from now, or later.
[/quote]

That’s why I have made up my mind, declare war and end the problem. Fuck the rebels we’ll do it ourselves and do it right.
I don’t think the ‘world police’ counter argument is even worth discussing in the context of a real problem. We have no good options with Syria which includes not getting involved. Not getting involved invites a whole host of issues on it’s own which affects us. No matter how you slice it, Syria is a problem we have to deal with. We cannot wish it away.

215

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

The US will be embarassed after this is done.
[/quote]

With obama driving this is a guarantee. He want’s to sorta, kinda get involved a little, but not really, just enough to fuck it up even worse.

This is a situation that calls for an actual leader who is able to make decisions and not concern himself with what the media or his pundits think about him. He is clearly unable to do that. This isn’t a situ where you can ‘tow the liberal line’ and still do the right thing.

I ain’t sure of much, but I am 100% certain that obama is going to fuck the Syria thing up royally. You might as well put that in history books as if it’s already happened.

216

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Maybe the U.S. should invade the U.S.

That way we can build bridges and roads, hospitals and schools.

Give the locals jobs and make everybody love America.

/Problem?[/quote]

Amen!

217

I was watching the debates and found it humurous the vast majority of your politicians are crunching away on blackberries not even giving a fuck about the seriousness of what they are discussing. They caught buthole playing poker, can be seen as a metaphor for real life don’t matter the outcome we will lay em down bluff our way through YARRR.I digress, the UN should create demilitarized zones and create a ceasefire, load it up with UN forces and tell the Syrians you hurt them and we’ll fuck you for ever.

Then create witnessed elections that are legit. f diplomacy fails then bomb em, bombing them outright now would be a dumb move because it will intensify anti american sentiments in the region, which your nation should highlight all the positive that is done for countries in the region. I find it funny that certain nations claim they hate America then cry for their help when they are in civil issue or issues with other nations.

218

[quote]pat wrote:
Nobody likes the fact that we are the world police, myself included. However, you can’t do anything about that now. So rather than whine and complain about it, we make lemonade with the lemons we got.

It’s a personal dilemma for me, because I hate to see people suffer and I want to stop it for them. the Syrians cannot help themselves.

Yeah, maybe it’s none of our business, but that ‘none of our business’ ship has sailed decades ago.[/quote]

I can understand how someone could feel this way, however it’s never to late to do the right thing.

219

I say stay out of Syria. I want Iran and it’s allies to become emboldened. When they think they have a big dick, and think they can just rape us, we will go all Lorena Bobbit on them it will make it all the more sweeter.

Maybe we should go back to being a sleeping Giant. Then when they awaken us they will not know what hit them.

220

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I say stay out of Syria. I want Iran and it’s allies to become emboldened. When they think they have a big dick, and think they can just rape us, we will go all Lorena Bobbit on them it will make it all the more sweeter.

Maybe we should go back to being a sleeping Giant. Then when they awaken us they will not know what hit them.[/quote]

Yep. We got to be a giant because we got adequate sleep in those days.

Running around putting out other people’s fires with your dick stuck up a hornet’s nest tends to be extremely catabolic.