So after 80,000 have been killed, and 1.5 million fled to other countries, we have decided (yesterday) to go ahead and arm the rebels.
Meanwhile, Russia continues to arm the Syrian government.
Does anyone see a problem with this? It's the exact same scenario that's bitten us in the Assad before!
The syrian government has limited resources and relies on Russia. The rebels, who have allegiance to Al Qeada, are now being armed by us.
Perhaps we should turn our focus to negotiating a settlement with Russia instead of both of our countries pumping more weapons to the players?
I'm very limited in my ability to predict the future, but if I were to rely on history, perhaps the history of Afganistan, I could probably predict where this will go.
Or, in the alternative, buy pumping up the conflict in Syria we are giving the tension in the middle east a release valve.
It seemed clear that we were happy to have a slow and steady transition to the rebels, but that we don't really trust them. Thus, we are giving them enough arms to fight on - BUT not to be a threat when the war is over. A lesson we learned from arming the bejesus out of Saddam. When he stopped killing the people we wanted (Iran) he then invaded the people we didn't want him to.
Bad Saddam.
Certainly the scare is that the rebels in Syria turn on Israel, or Turkey, or Iraq. BUT - we have Hezbollah aligned with Assad. Turkey helping the rebels. And Iraq twiddling its thumbs not taking sides.
If we then effect a regime change with minimal armaments, we significantly reduce the threat to Israel. Hurt Iran and Russia. And have influence over the new government via Turkey and our previous assistance.
It is a repeat of what has happened in the past, but hopefully we have learned from the past. We seem to be positioning ourselves better.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 14, 2013, 02:25:52 PM
Or, in the alternative, buy pumping up the conflict in Syria we are giving the tension in the middle east a release valve.
It seemed clear that we were happy to have a slow and steady transition to the rebels, but that we don't really trust them. Thus, we are giving them enough arms to fight on - BUT not to be a threat when the war is over. A lesson we learned from arming the bejesus out of Saddam. When he stopped killing the people we wanted (Iran) he then invaded the people we didn't want him to.
Bad Saddam.
Certainly the scare is that the rebels in Syria turn on Israel, or Turkey, or Iraq. BUT - we have Hezbollah aligned with Assad. Turkey helping the rebels. And Iraq twiddling its thumbs not taking sides.
If we then effect a regime change with minimal armaments, we significantly reduce the threat to Israel. Hurt Iran and Russia. And have influence over the new government via Turkey and our previous assistance.
It is a repeat of what has happened in the past, but hopefully we have learned from the past. We seem to be positioning ourselves better.
"Minimal armaments" is difficult to quantify, because as with what happened in the past, minimal today is very different than what it will be in a month or year. As a result of our pledge of participation, Russia is firing back by pledging to increase their participation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578545062769525132.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
We will send arms and mortars and missiles, they will send missile defense systems, and anti-personnel devices, so we will send drones and hellfires, and they will send big green monsters, and we will send flaming unicorns, and they will send the Kraken, and we will send . . .
Then when the war is over we will ask very nicely for
the rebels Al Qeada to return everything and they will be more than happy to comply.
or
We will send only small arms and shoulder-fired ground to air equipment, and Russia will send tanks, planes, helicopters, missiles, drones, and laser guided velociraptors, and we will say "sorry". . .
(http://rjmoeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/blog-obama-shrug.jpg)
. . . and the rebels will lose and blame us, and return many of our weapons, but not in the way we would like to receive them.
or
The moment Russia moves to give Syria the ability to strike a Isreal, Isreal will lash out, and we will find ourselves expected to provide support, and we will be in another war.
I don't see a win in any of the scenarios (of course there may be many others). Had we initiated a no-fly-zone in the beginning before Syria was armed to such a state from Russia, the Syrian government would likely be a thing of the past, 80,000 people would likely be alive, and 1.5 million would not be homeless refugees. Not that another Egypt style scenario would be a good thing, but at least we wouldn't' be back in the war business.
In other words, we were offered several opportunities to nip this in the bud, and chose not to. Now we deal with the blossom, and history teaches us where that leads.
That's a vast over simplification of the issues. You think we really wanted Assad out? Israel certainly didn't and is a large part of why we have been so cautious. Israel has had a safe border with Assad for decades, they didn't want him to go anywhere.
Also, Afghanistan and Syria are not at all alike. Afghanistan is a very poor, rural, primitive nation with very low education levels. Most adults have had little to no formal education and most cannot read. Little of the country has any kind of infrastructure. They are a simple people easily misled and fearful of us.
Syria is a well educated country, largely urbanized, largely secular with good (prewar) infrastructure for the region and while not a rich country by any means it's far wealthier than Afghanistan. That said, it's probably an even worse idea for us to get involved at any real level in Syria than it was in Iraq.
This is a true and ugly civil war divided largely on religious and tribal lines. The ruling Alawite sect is a religious offshoot of Shi'a Islam and is linked to and supported by Iran and Hezzbolah. They are at war with the long oppressed Sunni majority, some of whom have links to radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Alawites are correctly terrified that they will be massacred if Syria falls so they are not going to go easily and they have substantial backing from Iran and also from Russia who sees Assad has it's only true friend in the Middle East. This is the reverse of Iraq which was a largely secular nation run by a Sunni minority suppressing a Shi'a majority. Both Syria and Iraq have large Kurdish areas that largely are trying to stay out of the conflicts. Syria also has a large Christian minority that largely backs the government, they are also fearful of a Sunni takeover. The rebels are not all religious, some of Syria's rebels are allied with Al Queda but most are not linked to Al Queda or other radical groups. That said, getting in middle of a civil war is almost always a bad idea.
There's also larger game here going on, it's a battle between the Sunni Arab world, mostly the Saudi's and other gulf states, fighting for regional dominance against Shi'a Islam which is dominated by Iran. Iraq was a piece in this puzzle and Bush was stupid enough to hand Iraq over to the Iranians. Now the Saudi's are trying to take Syria from Iran in the same manner using the Arab Spring. We support the weakening of Iran's influence, but at the same time we want Israel safe and we are fearful of radical Sunni groups taking over. The other real danger here is if the war spreads, or rather spreads more. Watch Lebanon.
Whoa there, we are all over the board. Lets break it down:
1) Do we want the rebels to succeed against Assad?
That is question #1. Succeed can be quantified in many ways (win the war, drag the war on, take control of the government, destabilize Assad but never take power themselves). If you don't want the rebels to fight Assad the conversation ends here. If you do want the rebels to do anything other than die then...
2) Do we give them support?
As it stands the rebels are being supplied on the down-low by France, Turkey, and a couple other countries. USA is supplying intelligence and logistic support (medical supplies, humanitarian aid). The battle is currently jets, tanks, artillery, and a trained army/equipped army vs guys who sometimes have rifles. If we want them to succeed to any degree (i.e. not all die within another 6 months) then we need to give them support overtly or covertly. The question becomes...
3) How much support?
From what we are currently doing, to providing more intelligence, to providing small arms (machine guns, bullets, maybe anti-tank weapons)to outfitting them in a more serious mission (artillery, anti-aircraft missiles.... tanks? Helicopters? ), or an indirect intervention (no-fly zone, a few strategic cruise missiles, training, "advisers"), unleashing an ally (Turkey, Israel, go get 'em), or direct support (See, e.g., Iraq [twice], Afghanistan , Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain, etc.).
I don't think I have heard anyone advocating direct support. I have not heard the administration advocating indirect intervention or even heavy weapons. It appears the decision at this point is to provide light weapons and allow our allies in the region some level of autonomy (bombing every now and then, turkey a few retaliations). As it currently stands the battle is between a real army and people lacking basic equipment - if Russia sells more tanks the our support is still helping the rebels more than Russia's continued support for Assad (as a matter of changing the odds). Russia has been sending planes, tanks, drones, helicopters for decades. A little support will go a long way with the rebels.
If the situation changes, we will need to reevaluate. If Russia sends a new squadron of fighter jets to Syria we may need to ask Israel to declare them a nuclear weapons site or send in a team with some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles covertly. We can adapt.
The #1 rule in global conflict is never be afraid to adopt a foe as an ally. Britain, Spain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Turkey - all former enemies. Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia - all former allies. Conflict makes strange bed fellows. If we can use Al-Queda to take out Assad great. Two American enemies killing each other? That's some serious good politicking by the ole' USA!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 14, 2013, 04:07:02 PM
Whoa there, we are all over the board. Lets break it down:
1) Do we want the rebels to succeed against Assad?
That is question #1. Succeed can be quantified in many ways (win the war, drag the war on, take control of the government, destabilize Assad but never take power themselves). If you don't want the rebels to fight Assad the conversation ends here. If you do want the rebels to do anything other than die then...
2) Do we give them support?
As it stands the rebels are being supplied on the down-low by France, Turkey, and a couple other countries. USA is supplying intelligence and logistic support (medical supplies, humanitarian aid). The battle is currently jets, tanks, artillery, and a trained army/equipped army vs guys who sometimes have rifles. If we want them to succeed to any degree (i.e. not all die within another 6 months) then we need to give them support overtly or covertly. The question becomes...
3) How much support?
From what we are currently doing, to providing more intelligence, to providing small arms (machine guns, bullets, maybe anti-tank weapons)to outfitting them in a more serious mission (artillery, anti-aircraft missiles.... tanks? Helicopters? ), or an indirect intervention (no-fly zone, a few strategic cruise missiles, training, "advisers"), unleashing an ally (Turkey, Israel, go get 'em), or direct support (See, e.g., Iraq [twice], Afghanistan , Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain, etc.).
I don't think I have heard anyone advocating direct support. I have not heard the administration advocating indirect intervention or even heavy weapons. It appears the decision at this point is to provide light weapons and allow our allies in the region some level of autonomy (bombing every now and then, turkey a few retaliations). As it currently stands the battle is between a real army and people lacking basic equipment - if Russia sells more tanks the our support is still helping the rebels more than Russia's continued support for Assad (as a matter of changing the odds). Russia has been sending planes, tanks, drones, helicopters for decades. A little support will go a long way with the rebels.
If the situation changes, we will need to reevaluate. If Russia sends a new squadron of fighter jets to Syria we may need to ask Israel to declare them a nuclear weapons site or send in a team with some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles covertly. We can adapt.
The #1 rule in global conflict is never be afraid to adopt a foe as an ally. Britain, Spain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Turkey - all former enemies. Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia - all former allies. Conflict makes strange bed fellows. If we can use Al-Queda to take out Assad great. Two American enemies killing each other? That's some serious good politicking by the ole' USA!
We don't have a history of playing this game of chess very well. We made this bed earlier when we opted to stand back and observe Syria as they exterminated their people. Now we are willing to lend a little help, but only because they forced our hand.
1) and 2) are a yes. 3) is where we get into trouble. No matter what our level of involvement in the beginning, we will likely be forced to sh!t or get off the pot eventually. I agree, we can adapt, but we don't move as fast as we used to, and the current political climate gives us very little wiggle room.
I guess I would rather see this handled between puppet masters rather than through the blood of the puppets.
As predicted, it's time to sh!t.
Prepare for Iraq II. First the cruise missiles. . . You know the rest of the tune.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/world/middleeast/syria-says-un-will-get-access-to-site-of-possible-chemical-attack.html?hp&_r=0
They are apparently firing on the UN Inspectors now.
http://news.sky.com/story/1133285/syria-un-inspectors-shot-at-by-snipers
(http://www.hark.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/team-america-world-police-1.jpg)
Kerry came off determined today. Looks like Syria will be fitted with a cruise missile rectal probe soon. I'll support this intervention. WMD use is the red line. Wanna know how badass America is. Our peace prize winners will kill you!!!
This is some amazing Deja-vu. I wonder if we will find Assad in a spider hole?
Will this war be funded?
Is Kerry lying about weapons of mass distraction? (http://news.yahoo.com/syria-accuses-kerry-lying-disregarding-un-090217526.html)
(http://www.moonbattery.com/KERRY-REPORTING-FOR-DUTY.jpg)
Only 9% support unfunded military action in Syria. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/)
Liberals must be livid that the president would even consider such action.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2013, 09:09:05 AM
Liberals must be livid that the president would even consider such action.
Are conservatives jumping for joy? I've not started my happy cocktailing.
For a guy who says he can't predict the future, Mr. Gas seems quite willing to do so. As well as recreate the past.
We've learned some from the past yet political hatred for "liberals" and Obama particularly keeps some from ever learning.
I support some kind of intervention now.
Sending in missiles and drones which might kill more innocent civilians on top of those already killed or maimed by chemical weapons doesn't sound like a very good solution, now does it?
That apparently is what the Admin is mulling right now.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2013, 10:06:36 AM
Sending in missiles and drones which might kill more innocent civilians on top of those already killed or maimed by chemical weapons doesn't sound like a very good solution, now does it?
That apparently is what the Admin is mulling right now.
Some form of that is mulled by every admin any time this sort of thing is happening isn't it?
I'm not sure of an administration that hasn't at least mulled it within the last 100 years.
Quote from: Townsend on August 27, 2013, 10:09:10 AM
Some form of that is mulled by every admin any time this sort of thing is happening isn't it?
I'm not sure of an administration that hasn't at least mulled it within the last 100 years.
It's time to quit injecting ourselves into every other country's business as the primary global cop. Hell, it's been time to quit being the global cop 50 years ago. Let someone else take the lead. Did we
still not learn this lesson after Bush II?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2013, 10:11:21 AM
It's time to quit injecting ourselves into every other country's business as the primary global cop. Hell, it's been time to quit being the global cop 50 years ago. Let someone else take the lead. Did we still not learn this lesson after Bush II?
The folks in charge aren't going to leave their interests in the hands of someone else. These are their defense contract opportunities. You think they want to lose them to things like the Eurofighter?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 27, 2013, 09:47:43 AM
For a guy who says he can't predict the future, Mr. Gas seems quite willing to do so. As well as recreate the past.
We've learned some from the past yet political hatred for "liberals" and Obama particularly keeps some from ever learning.
I support some kind of intervention now.
Hey, just checking the temperature. ;)
Let's see how the liberal logic works, it goes something like this:
In 1998 Bill Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act, and lobs hundreds of cruise missiles into Iraq for 4 days straight killing thousands, and is unsuccessful at diverting attention from Monica. He claims that Iraq has used chemical and/or biological weapons. Says we must destroy their WMDs.= GOOD
Bush continues the war, gets approval from congress, but follows up with what ends up being a 10 year + engagement. Tries to find the WMDs that the Clinton administration claimed to have knowledge of, but is unsuccessful. = BAD
Clinton Bush lied about WMDs. Unfunded!! People died!
President Obama may take the same action as Clinton (except from the golf course at MV) = Good! Get rid of those WMD! Free Syria! Fainting! Tingle up legs! OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!
(http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama-worship.jpg)
Did I get it all?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2013, 10:11:21 AM
It's time to quit injecting ourselves into every other country's business as the primary global cop. Hell, it's been time to quit being the global cop 50 years ago. Let someone else take the lead. Did we still not learn this lesson after Bush II?
I was talking about this with my mother yesterday; I said we should just get out and let them sort it out themselves. My mother reminded me that as long as that runny black liquid is prevalent in the region, that will likely NEVER happen.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but as a cynic, I don't see us ever refraining from this where oil is even remotely concerned. And it is here.
Another reason to break the dependence on not just foreign oil, but oil in general. I'm afraid, though, that will never happen in my lifetime.
Quote from: Hoss on August 27, 2013, 11:11:05 AM
I'm afraid, though, that will never happen in my lifetime.
Nope. Because the "they" will kill you before they let that happen.
What does intervening in Syria do for us? I don't see much of anything positive. WMDs? We had "proof" of WMDs in Iraq. Which side should we be on? The present regime or the Al Queda? (sp?). I see it as more of a no-win situation than Iraq. I also don't believe we will ever learn, regardless of which party is in power, that little steps (advisors in Viet Nam, no-fly zones in many places.... eventually lead to American GIs getting killed. There needs to be a good reason. To me, Syria has not proven to be a good reason.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 27, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
What does intervening in Syria do for us? I don't see much of anything positive. WMDs? We had "proof" of WMDs in Iraq. Which side should we be on? The present regime or the Al Queda? (sp?). I see it as more of a no-win situation than Iraq. I also don't believe we will ever learn, regardless of which party is in power, that little steps (advisors in Viet Nam, no-fly zones in many places.... eventually lead to American GIs getting killed. There needs to be a good reason. To me, Syria has not proven to be a good reason.
I see a good reason to cut our dependence on foreign energy! We suck as world cop, and the only reason we do it is because of our dependence. We have plenty of energy right here at home. Now is probably a good time to step away from a part of the world that desires to implode under its own political/religious differences. It's sad that these people want to kill each other, and we should condemn such acts, and suspend our interests (through boycott) in countries that commit atrocities, but we should not involve ourselves militarily, because it never leads to a positive outcome. Can't think of a single example.
With one hand we shake our finger, but with the other we write a check. Let the Middle East become someone else's pet.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2013, 02:21:56 PM
I see a good reason to cut our dependence on foreign energy! We suck as world cop, and the only reason we do it is because of our dependence. We have plenty of energy right here at home. Now is probably a good time to step away from a part of the world that desires to implode under its own political/religious differences. It's sad that these people want to kill each other, and we should condemn such acts, and suspend our interests (through boycott) in countries that commit atrocities, but we should not involve ourselves militarily, because it never leads to a positive outcome. Can't think of a single example.
With one hand we shake our finger, but with the other we write a check. Let the Middle East become someone else's pet.
Until the politicians get out of the big oil lobby's pocket, "good luck with that."
MSNBC shifts coverage from Miley Cyrus to mundane international coverage. Looks like we may be scheduling our strikes for Thursday according to the official White House news channel.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite
Russia is evacuating their personnel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10268547/Syria-Russia-evacuates-citizens-ahead-of-military-strikes-in-the-next-few-days.html
Iran says they will strike Isreal if we attack. Will we fight on two fronts?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920604000513
Anti-war protests begin in Washington.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9610668762_a7135fce4f_m.jpg)
"No blood for oil!"
"Obama lied, people died!"
Nope. I support Obama's approach to this, and will back him. WMD is an absolute game changer.
Quote from: Townsend on August 27, 2013, 09:27:15 AM
I've not started my happy cocktailing.
This frightens me.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2013, 04:31:20 PM
MSNBC shifts coverage from Miley Cyrus to mundane international coverage. Looks like we may be scheduling our strikes for Thursday according to the official White House news channel.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite
Russia is evacuating their personnel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10268547/Syria-Russia-evacuates-citizens-ahead-of-military-strikes-in-the-next-few-days.html
Iran says they will strike Isreal if we attack. Will we fight on two fronts?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920604000513
Anti-war protests begin in Washington.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9610668762_a7135fce4f_m.jpg)
Glad we gave the insurgents proper warning to get out of the way so they can substitute in some innocent women and children.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2013, 11:49:01 PM
Glad we gave the insurgents proper warning to get out of the way so they can substitute in some innocent women and children.
And not end plan.
Here's the scenario:
1. Establish that there is no imminent threat to US interests.
2. Telegraph your intensions so that personnel, aircraft, and weaponry can be moved to safety, and facilities can be converted to aspirin and baby food factories, schools & hospitals.
3. Provide no goal. As Carney said "we are not seeking regime change." We've just got to save face politically because our careless words have to match our careless acts.
4. Do not involve Congress. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Former Liberal, Constitutional Scholar, and Senator Obama in 2008.
I wonder if VP Biden will move to impeach President Obama?
"I want to make it clear to you," Biden said speaking at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa in December 2007. "I've drafted, with the help of 17 years I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or the ranking member. Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted and outline of what I think the constitutional limits have on the president in over the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me, and it's being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear and I made it clear to the president, if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without congressional approval — I will make it my business to impeach him." Then the senator made a joke about "Davenport" being the place where his grandma's sofa was made, and giggled uncontrollably.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html (http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html)
This is from January 30th.
The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.
A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.
As per the scheme 'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the Daily Mail reports.
Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.
According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.
The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
According to the paper, the U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the matter.
QuoteThe emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.
I wonder if he got Mr. Underhill's American Express account number too?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 28, 2013, 09:49:14 AM
I wonder if he got Mr. Underhill's American Express account number too?
I was just thinking about that movie this morning. Mostly about the possibility of another sequel and how big of a "no" that should be.
Quote from: Townsend on August 28, 2013, 10:02:23 AM
I was just thinking about that movie this morning. Mostly about the possibility of another sequel and how big of a "no" that should be.
In the annals of Hollywood sequels, Fletch Lives! wasn't too bad a movie.
Checking IMDB, looks like he's reprising the role of Clark Griswold in another round of "Vacation" shooting in 2014. Of course that will release after "Hot Tub Time Machine 2".
m
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 28, 2013, 10:43:51 AM
m
Any reason you don't just click the "Show unread posts since last visit"?
I'm waiting for President Obama to give his "Shock and Uhh" speech explaining how this is differenter than Iraq.
Should be a hoot!
. . .You know, if Iraq had a son, it would look like Syria.
Loose Lips on Syria (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579039011328308776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)
(http://thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/tactical_facepalm.jpg)
Mr. Assad,
Please move your people out of the way of our attacks. No need to move your aircraft or weaponry.
Thank you, and have a nice day. :)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/9614315411_20fb2776f9_z.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on August 28, 2013, 10:45:08 AM
Any reason you don't just click the "Show unread posts since last visit"?
I do that, too, but when I am particularly interested in a thread, I don't want to take a chance on losing track of it. And really don't have any comment to add....so, I put the marker (m) in place. Some of these hibernate for extended times. I could just write something, I guess....but would rather cogitate a while. Thoughts are approaching fruition, so may have a comment soon.
Hey! I had a thought...actually a question about anyone else having a thought....
Has anyone else noticed the pattern the powers that be are moving into place?
First, a quick diversionary question - have been listening to KRMG and KTOK about this and the trend is warping the discussion so they can bash Obama, as always - and for the wrong reasons, as usual. I just gotta wonder about something - we now have Hezbollah and Al Qaida fighting/killing each other in a big way. In just exactly which bizarro, seriously psychotic world is this a bad thing?? And yet, for some reason, Rupert Murdoch has taken the side of Al Qaida - wanting us to hurry up and attack Syria.
Well, I guess the phrase "humanitarian reasons" is likely to be slung around during this - much like one of the straws that Bush's Boys slung around to justify Iraq. That particular motivation has NEVER been one of our primary goals in the history of the country. So, what is the REAL motivation here? Well, besides Obama bashing, of course....
Back to the first question - nope, I will keep that one for later.
Interesting. I am seeing the opposite. Watched some Fox coverage yesterday, and the overwhelming theme was that the president should not attack, at least not without consulting Congress first and establishing a reason for imminent threat.
Yesterday 112 congress people (Dem and Repub) issued a letter to the president demanding that capitulate with his own 2008 statement concerning the power of a president to act unilaterally. This morning there was news that he will not agree to come before congress, but will hold a conference call for concerned congress members. That is a step in the right direction. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/growing-bipartisan-coalition-urges-obama-to-seek-congressional-authorization-for-syrian-strike/
It seems when pressured this president can make the right decisions, and right now the media (left and right), congress, and the international community is pushing him not to attack. Krouthammer, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, even Michael Moore are saying that there is no eminent threat To US interests. Chris Matthews is questioning to effectiveness of an attack too http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/27/chris_matthews_on_syria_hitler_didnt_use_chemical_weapons.html
The war drums are not coming from the media on either side, they are not coming from congress, and they sure as hell aren't coming from the people.
Letter to the president:
August 28, 2013
We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.
Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in "hostilities." In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:
"... President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya –which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration — without prior congressional authorization."
We view the precedent this opinion sets, where "national interest" is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute "hostilities," what does?
If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.
Sincerely,
Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02)
Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. Tom Marino (PA-10)
Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-01)
Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-17)
Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Rep. Tim Griffin (AR-2)
Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03)
Rep. Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16)
Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-08)
Rep. John Campbell (CA-45)
Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-03)
Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Rep. Austin Scott (GA-08)
Rep. Bill Posey (FL-8)
Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-04)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Rep. David Roe (TN-01)
Rep. Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN-02)
Rep. Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Rep. James Lankford (OK-05)
Rep. Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-08)
Rep. Trey Radel (FL-19)
Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Rep. David McKinley (WV-01)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fl-12)
Rep. Joseph Heck (NV-03)
Rep. Dennis Ross (FL-15)
Rep. Billy Long (MO-07)
Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
Rep. Kevin Yoder (KS-03)
Rep. Doug Collins(GA-09)
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (TX-16)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Rep. William Enyart (IL-12)
Rep. Timothy Walz (MN-01)
Rep. Christopher Gibson (NY-19)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Rep. Michael Capuano (MA-07)
Rep. Michael Simpson (ID-02)
Rep. Michael McCaul (TX-10)
Rep. Thomas E. Petri (WI-06)
Rep. Robert Pittenger (NC-09)
Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03)
Rep. Tom Latham (IA-04)
Rep. Richard Nolan (MN-08)
Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Rep. Sean Duffy (WI-07)
Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)
Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Rep. Roger Williams (TX-25)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02)
Rep. Sam Farr (CA-20)
Rep. Steve Daines (MT)
Rep. Robert Hurt (VA-05)
Rep. Steve Southerland, II (FL-2)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Rep. Ralph Hall (TX-04)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Rep. Robert Wittman (VA-01)
Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-4)
Rep. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Rep. Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Rep. Tom Price (GA-06)
Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10)
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27)
Rep. Diane Black (TN-06)
Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-10)
Rep. Peter Welch (VT)
Rep. Lou Barletta (PA-11)
Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18)
Rep. Gregg Harper (MS-03)
Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Rep. Ted S. Yoho ( FL-03)
Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17)
Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Rep. Cory Gardner (CO-04)
Rep. Alan Nunnelee (MS-01)
Rep. Jason Smith (MO-08)
Rep. Charles Fleischmann (TN-03)
Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-7)
Now it seems that the president's "unequivocal evidence" is in doubt. His campaign for military action is disintegrating as is his coalition. Russia has dispatched a war force to meet ours in the Mediterranean.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10272555/Cameron-backs-down-on-urgent-Syria-strikes.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-hollande-idUSBRE97S0CU20130829
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-warships-mediterranean-report-082257880.html
"That's a Mexican standoff,
and that was not the deal."
. . .But the president is still pushing for an attack:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/08/29/2547651/obama-assad-chemical-weapons/
Quote from: Gaspar on August 29, 2013, 05:34:59 AM
The war drums are not coming from the media on either side, they are not coming from congress, and they sure as hell aren't coming from the people.
Rupert Murdoch.
I am saying leave it alone - don't attack. Let the kill each other off.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 29, 2013, 07:13:34 AM
Now it seems that the president's "unequivocal evidence" is in doubt. His campaign for military action is disintegrating as is his coalition. Russia has dispatched a war force to meet ours in the Mediterranean.
Maybe they can tie up together and play canasta or cribbage?
A first!
The American people, MSNBC, Huffington, CNN, and FOX are all of the same opinion!
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/28/if-obama-plans-to-strike-syria-must-first-ask-congress-for-green-light/
The president should get congressional approval before intervening in a civil war to help Al Qaeda forces defeat Assad. . . but he won't because he doesn't like the opinion of the American people or their elected officials. He doesn't like it when it comes to domestic policy (Obamacare), nor does he like it when it comes to foreign matters.
Is this guy going to start WWIII? If Russia and China are willing to join in retaliation, this could be a mess.
Assad's son is taunting President Obama on Facebook.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/wsw_hafez_assad_FB1/wsw_hafez_assad_FB1-blog480.png)
The kid is 11.
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Image62-620x348.jpg)
Wow! Pelosi demands war.
I wonder if she will be against this one too after she is done being for it?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-syria-96065.html
(http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/congress/john-kerry1.jpg)
Kerry had made his case too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/running-transcript-secretary-of-state-john-kerrys-remarks-on-syria-on-aug-30/2013/08/30/f3a63a1a-1193-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Hopefully he won't accuse any of our service men of rape and murder this time.
Haven't read or looked at your posts in quite some time. Looks like you're not making much progress. In fact, slipping into comic book territory.
But, let me ask you about something you are more grounded in. Bought some 'q sauce at Reasors a while back called "Sa...Mokin', with the image of a pig on the front (yeah, how unique). It was really great sauce. Of course Reasors stopped carrying it. Are you familiar with it and where I might find more?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 30, 2013, 12:53:29 PM
Haven't read or looked at your posts in quite some time. Looks like you're not making much progress. In fact, slipping into comic book territory.
But, let me ask you about something you are more grounded in. Bought some 'q sauce at Reasors a while back called "Sa...Mokin', with the image of a pig on the front (yeah, how unique). It was really great sauce. Of course Reasors stopped carrying it. Are you familiar with it and where I might find more?
(http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/pelosi-assad.jpg)
You are probably right. I'm sure we share the same opinion that there is no real justification for US action, but since President Obama wants it, he should by all means have it, because after all, it will create jobs, and I'm sure he will find a way to fund it through Obamacare! Lets just support our president and hope for few casualties.
The good news is that President Obama may have finally found a way to unite the parties in a new spirit of cooperation. . .against him!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/syria-strike-chemical-weapons_n_3844469.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Sa. . .Mokin' is a local team. I think Food Pyramid has it.
Nice one by Kos. That about sums it up:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/30/1234643/-Fireagra-for-foreign-policy-impotence?detail=hide#
. . .and the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=twitter
. . .and the president has indeed found a way to finance this war:
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/u-s-selling-cluster-bombs-worth-641-million-to-saudi-arabia/
Quote from: Gaspar on August 30, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
(http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/pelosi-assad.jpg)
Makes me think of the mileage the lefty pussifists got out of the Rumsfeld-Saddam photo. That said, I am even more supportive of Obama on the Syrian intervention policy after hearing Kerry.
I guess Syrian civilians are more valuable to the world than Iraqi civilians.
I also guess that I don't care too much if the Syrian government kills a bunch of Islamic militants.
Quote from: guido911 on August 30, 2013, 06:24:23 PM
Makes me think of the mileage the lefty pussifists got out of the Rumsfeld-Saddam photo. That said, I am even more supportive of Obama on the Syrian intervention policy after hearing Kerry.
The Obama Doctrine seems very different than the Bush Doctrine, in that the requirements for international support differ. Bush had over 50 countries backing action against Sadam. Obama only seems to be able to garner the support of the French, and no domestic support. Congress, the people, the typically friendly Obama media machine, no one seems to want a dog in this fight except for the supreme leader, and he is willing to commit the devastating destructive force of our military to a political end.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 30, 2013, 08:04:45 PM
The Obama Doctrine seems very different than the Bush Doctrine, in that the requirements for international support differ. Bush had over 50 countries backing action against Sadam. Obama only seems to be able to garner the support of the French, and no domestic support. Congress, the people, the typically friendly Obama media machine, no one seems to want a dog in this fight except for the supreme leader, and he is willing to commit the devastating destructive force of our military to a political end.
Don't you mean Obama's military?
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/obama-the-dictator-my-military/
Quote from: Gaspar on August 30, 2013, 08:04:45 PM
Obama only seems to be able to garner the support of the French, and no domestic support.
If the French are so offended, let them take care of "the situation". I am tired of the world saying they are "so offended" and then depending on the USA to take care of the situation. Sh!t or get off the pot.
It amazes me that some people can't see a difference between a country that had used WMDs over a decade prior and had been supervised destroying them and another that (probably) is using them as we speak.
Not that I support unilateral intervention. Or even going in with a coalition, unless said coalition is under the auspices of the UN and we do not make up the bulk of the force. The fact that there's a difference doesn't justify us just doing whatever the love we want to whoever the love we want.
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2013, 09:17:10 PM
It amazes me that some people can't see a difference between a country that had used WMDs over a decade prior and had been supervised destroying them and another that (probably) is using them as we speak.
What is the statute of limitations for using chemical weapons?
Whether those items were destroyed or moved (to Syria?) depends on who you listen to.
So, the leading country in the free world, wrapped in moralism and chauvinism, should just stand by and watch as innocents are gassed along with militants because we're weary, economically recovering, politically at odds with each other, distrustful of our government, dependent on middle east resources and convinced the middle east deserves to suffer in a sickness of their own making. That's what I draw from this conversation no matter how artfully, hatefully and contorted the remarks.
We did that during the build-up to WWII. Mired in depression, mistrust of our government and foreign entanglements, isolationism and lethargy, we ignored the genocide and destruction that was ravaging Europe and Asia. Lots of countries did. We even turned our eyes away from a strong ally, Britain. Of course at the time we used the same logic displayed here. Those were Jews after all, not Christians, and atrocities in Asia were rooted in long histories we couldn't even fathom. Let them solve their disputes without our involvement.
Really, I expected more than that. Even though Guido obviously hates Obama and anything or anyone related, he can see through that animosity to the issues of humanity involved. We can't just stand by and watch.
^^^^ Hate is a bit strong as to my feelings about Obama, as I have frequently said the guy has a terrific sense of humor and comedic timing. But aquaman is right, although I would not draw the WWII parallel necessarily. And Obama is right. And Kerry is right. And the "right", like those that rallied in Tulsa with DelGiorno near LaFortune Park (like me-but I was never a fan of his) in the lead up to the Iraq war, there is no excuse other than politics to at least not back the president who is obviously making a very tough call. And this attack, as opposed to the bin Laden raid, IS a tough call. And let's not forget that there will be soldiers and sailors in harm's way, and they and their mission must be supported and honored.
Still, this will not stop me from making observations about the left's hypocrisy on this decision. Here is today's giggle:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/pelosi-we-have-to-bomb-syria-to-find-out-whats-in-it/
That's why I respect you and your views even though I find them objectionable and often unsupportable. Like the link you provided. The headline has nothing to do with the story or Pelosi's remarks. But the website knows its the headline that will get passed around.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2013, 02:26:35 PM
That's why I respect you and your views even though I find them objectionable and often unsupportable. Like the link you provided. The headline has nothing to do with the story or Pelosi's remarks. But the website knows its the headline that will get passed around.
That writing style is Jim Treacher's blogging schtick. I am a bit pissed about Obama's very recent (apparent) caving to bullcrap Congressional whining on this. I will respect the guy even more if he sticks to his principles and not waiver. DO IT NOW, and do it decisively. I think the country would rally behind Obama if he did.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2013, 08:42:07 AM
What is the statute of limitations for using chemical weapons?
Nobody said there was one. However, when deciding whether military action is appropriate in a given situation, I would have to say that "currently using chemical weapons" lends the situation some urgency. I'm rather torn on this whole Syria thing. On the one hand, I'm tired of us playing cop. On the other, allowing Assad to get away with using chemical weapons makes it more likely chemical weapons will be used elsewhere in the future. In some ways, that makes it our (and everyone else's) business.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2013, 03:25:07 PM
Nobody said there was one. However, when deciding whether military action is appropriate in a given situation, I would have to say that "currently using chemical weapons" lends the situation some urgency. I'm rather torn on this whole Syria thing. On the one hand, I'm tired of us playing cop. On the other, allowing Assad to get away with using chemical weapons makes it more likely chemical weapons will be used elsewhere in the future. In some ways, that makes it our (and everyone else's) business.
QuoteIt amazes me that some people can't see a difference between a country that had used WMDs over a decade prior and had been supervised destroying them and another that (probably) is using them as we speak.
Step 1: Wait 10 years.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2013, 12:45:38 PM
So, the leading country in the free world, wrapped in moralism and chauvinism, should just stand by and watch as innocents are gassed along with militants because we're weary, economically recovering, politically at odds with each other, distrustful of our government, dependent on middle east resources and convinced the middle east deserves to suffer in a sickness of their own making. That's what I draw from this conversation no matter how artfully, hatefully and contorted the remarks.
We did that during the build-up to WWII. Mired in depression, mistrust of our government and foreign entanglements, isolationism and lethargy, we ignored the genocide and destruction that was ravaging Europe and Asia. Lots of countries did. We even turned our eyes away from a strong ally, Britain. Of course at the time we used the same logic displayed here. Those were Jews after all, not Christians, and atrocities in Asia were rooted in long histories we couldn't even fathom. Let them solve their disputes without our involvement.
People who tried to make that correlation in 2003 were laughed at. I guess it was because we weren't in a depression/recession, yet. And because Bush II was President.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2013, 12:45:38 PM
convinced the middle east deserves to suffer in a sickness of their own making.
How many times do you need to be stabbed in the back after you try to help to realize "those people" don't want what we have to offer? I don't care what religion they are, only that what we try to give them is discarded and not appreciated.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
How many times do you need to be stabbed in the back after you try to help to realize "those people" don't want what we have to offer? I don't care what religion they are, only that what we try to give them is discarded and not appreciated.
Problem is that we 'need' what they have to offer (oil) and as long as that remains the case our role as world policemen in that area is assured. Unfortunately.
Quote from: Hoss on August 31, 2013, 05:39:18 PM
Problem is that we 'need' what they have to offer (oil) and as long as that remains the case our role as world policemen in that area is assured. Unfortunately.
I recognize the reality of what you said.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2013, 05:02:03 PM
People who tried to make that correlation in 2003 were laughed at. I guess it was because we weren't in a depression/recession, yet. And because Bush II was President.
I'll have to doubt your assertion. I don't remember anyone making such correlations or laughing during the situation. I remember being doubtful of the evidence of wmd's. Nonetheless, Saddam was worthy of toppling and so is Assad. Is there any doubt about the use of chemical weapons on innocents?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2013, 05:53:42 PM
I'll have to doubt your assertion. I don't remember anyone making such correlations or laughing during the situation.
I will have to concede there may not have been physical laughing. I wasn't on TNF at the time but anyone I mentioned it to definitely poo-pooed it.
QuoteI remember being doubtful of the evidence of wmd's.
As do we all. It is, however, easier to prove something exists than to prove something did not exist. We also gave Saddam enough warning for him to move them somewhere else, perhaps Syria.
QuoteNonetheless, Saddam was worthy of toppling and so is Assad. Is there any doubt about the use of chemical weapons on innocents?
Was there any doubt of chemical weapons use on innocents by Saddam? Assad is not a good guy. The forces fighting him are also not our friends. I hear so often that our intervention in Iraq was TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED and cost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS maybe MILLIONS of innocent civilians their lives but now our intervention in Syria is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED. Give me a break.
What would you be saying if there were a Republican President of the USA. I expect it would be a different story.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2013, 07:58:43 PM
I will have to concede there may not have been physical laughing. I wasn't on TNF at the time but anyone I mentioned it to definitely poo-pooed it.
As do we all. It is, however, easier to prove something exists than to prove something did not exist. We also gave Saddam enough warning for him to move them somewhere else, perhaps Syria.
Was there any doubt of chemical weapons use on innocents by Saddam? Assad is not a good guy. The forces fighting him are also not our friends. I hear so often that our intervention in Iraq was TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED and cost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS maybe MILLIONS of innocent civilians their lives but now our intervention in Syria is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED. Give me a break.
What would you be saying if there were a Republican President of the USA. I expect it would be a different story.
You are leaving out pertinent details. 911 was still fresh as well as Bush's popularity. This is not ceteris paribus.
Totally justified? I couldn't say that. These are tough decisions that, other than Afghanistan, are never crystal clear. However, I supported the attack on Saddam and if I remember right, a republican was president. So did many of my friends. I was dubious of the facts and didn't trust Cheney at all but the stories of Kurds being gassed was too dramatic to ignore.
Maybe you need to change who you're having dialogues with. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2013, 09:47:01 PM
Maybe you need to change who you're having dialogues with. ;)
Perhaps. I am seeing a side of you I did not expect.
It is a feeding frenzy on the Sunday news shows on Obama's dithering on Syria. Joe Lieberman appeared to tear him a new one. This is both an upsetting and embarrassing foreign policy approach. What happened to the "steel in his spine" stuff Biden said about Obama?
Just do it. Even the damned Syrian monsters are laughing at us.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2013, 01:26:14 PM
It is a feeding frenzy on the Sunday news shows on Obama's dithering on Syria. Joe Lieberman appeared to tear him a new one. This is both an upsetting and embarrassing foreign policy approach. What happened to the "steel in his spine" stuff Biden said about Obama?
Just do it. Even the damned Syrian monsters are laughing at us.
Wait a minute. President Obama is doing what he's supposed to do under the Constitution by putting this decision before Congress, and you're complaining about
that?
Quote from: Ed W on September 01, 2013, 02:26:07 PM
Wait a minute. President Obama is doing what he's supposed to do under the Constitution by putting this decision before Congress, and you're complaining about that?
That's right.
Congress set the "red line".
Congress sent Kerry out here to make the case for attacking Syria. Please Ed. Don't insult us in here with your "Obama is doing the constitutional thing". He could have done that from the outset instead of looking at Congress after he couldn't get
any coalition together. Bush could at least get Britain on board. :P
Obama needs to be a leader, and in a profile of courage do what he believes a commander in chief should do.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2013, 10:03:23 PM
Perhaps. I am seeing a side of you I did not expect.
Actually I meant your friends who gave you such a hard time.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
Obama needs to be a leader, and in a profile of courage do what he believes a commander in chief should do.
Oh, thanks. That cleared it up nicely. A leader would have gone ahead with an attack (and would have been soundly castigated by the Republicans for being both reckless and lawless) but when Obama follows our Constitution he can be criticized for not being a powerful leader.
Funny... but I don't even think I have to read any of the posts on this thread to come to the conclusion that....
Teabagger on Friday: "Obama should get congressional approval."
Teabagger on Sunday: "Obama is weak for asking Congress for approval."
Typical.
Quote from: Ed W on September 02, 2013, 08:05:04 AM
Oh, thanks. That cleared it up nicely. A leader would have gone ahead with an attack (and would have been soundly castigated by the Republicans for being both reckless and lawless) but when Obama follows our Constitution he can be criticized for not being a powerful leader.
I think I get it now. Obama is showing tremendous leadership and constitutional awareness by this approach.
I don't see it that way. I think he's realized that in a democracy, the people and their elected representatives have a voice in affairs of state. Granted, we of the great unwashed will not be asked to vote up or down on involvement with Syria or any other nation, but our voices are heard through those we elect to represent us and we're heard through forums like this one and so many others. It's the NSA, you know.
There's undoubtedly a purely political calculation being done, too. If the President had attacked Syria without consulting Congress, the outcry would have been tremendous. It would haunt the rest of his term in office and probably have an effect on the next Presidential election. Yet by putting this to a vote, he's forcing both parties to take a stand right now. Could we see Republicans voting against it and subsequently being labeled as "soft on defense"? I'd like to think that party politics wouldn't intrude, but I'm not quite that idealistic.
We've been round and round on drone strikes killing terrorists, innocent civilians, and even some Americans. It's wrong to permit our president to commit an act of war without Congressional approval just as it's wrong to permit him to kill Americans without any legal oversight.
Do we really need to attack Syria? We're being told it's a national defense issue, but how is Assad a threat to us? My thought would be to allow his neighbors and the Europeans to deal with it since it's much more likely to impact them, but then again, since one neighbor is Israel, we know what would happen if they became involved. So in a sense, perhaps American military intervention is intended to keep the Israelis out of it.
Quote from: Ed W on September 02, 2013, 02:10:23 PM
I don't see it that way. I think he's realized that in a democracy, the people and their elected representatives have a voice in affairs of state.
Really? Obama just now figured that out?
Like Obamacare.... ??? ??? ???
Quote from: guido911 on September 02, 2013, 04:03:05 PM
Really? Obama just now figured that out?
No, he was probably ahead of us on this one, but apparently I'm the first to explain it to you in such simple and easy to understand terms.
OK, enough snark. I get mean on an empty stomach. Time for dinner!
It takes a child to raze a village. . .in Syria. This is so sad.
Quote from: Ed W on September 02, 2013, 02:10:23 PM
Yet by putting this to a vote, he's forcing both parties to take a stand right now.
Until the members of the House and Senate find it politically inexpedient, like they did with the vote to invade Iraq.
Dinner with Hitler.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR31nQUGUy8LED_fmdEOL4R7CnoAEHCR7oqtGS6qsvZIZhiD9GKDg)
From drudge.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 30, 2013, 12:00:45 PM
Hopefully he won't accuse any of our service men of rape and murder this time.
No need...the actual conviction (through plea) of Bales proved the murder.
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2013, 09:17:10 PM
It amazes me that some people can't see a difference between a country that had used WMDs over a decade prior and had been supervised destroying them and another that (probably) is using them as we speak.
Don't forget the fact that we were the ones who supplied that country with the tools, equipment, supplies, and training in the use of those chemical weapons...we wanted him to use them against Iran. He did. As well as his own people.
There is that difference....
Quote from: AquaMan on August 31, 2013, 05:53:42 PM
I'll have to doubt your assertion. I don't remember anyone making such correlations or laughing during the situation. I remember being doubtful of the evidence of wmd's. Nonetheless, Saddam was worthy of toppling and so is Assad. Is there any doubt about the use of chemical weapons on innocents?
Why?
Same question I have asked since 2001...and before. Why would we be concerned enough about that cheap little tin-horn dictator who just happened to kill a couple hundred thousand of the people in his country he didn't like...? Where is the compelling 'need' to attack and depose him with the full force of our military? (Especially since we provided him the means to do that...) And even MORE - the fact that we killed another 800,000+ performing that "liberation" of the people of Iraq!! And as a nation, we see NO inconsistency in these facts....
It certainly had NOTHING to do with humanitarian reasons... else we would have done something in Congo, Uganda, Rwanda - WAY before doing anything in Iraq!!
Or is there something "worse" about killing 1,400 people with gas than there is from killing a million with clubs and machete's...??
But wait...what is missing from this discussion so far...?? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
Oil.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 02, 2013, 12:24:08 PM
Funny... but I don't even think I have to read any of the posts on this thread to come to the conclusion that....
Teabagger on Friday: "Obama should get congressional approval."
Teabagger on Sunday: "Obama is weak for asking Congress for approval."
Typical.
You understand this topic perfectly!!
Quote from: guido911 on September 02, 2013, 01:24:16 PM
I think I get it now. Obama is showing tremendous leadership and constitutional awareness by this approach.
'Bout time....
On both points.
(http://i.imgur.com/n2NH2Yf.jpg)
We must prove to Assad that we are willing to kill thousands of civilians in response to the killing of thousands of civilians.
Chemicals?
We don't need no stinking chemicals!
(http://www.auburnmedia.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/03-21-06_alfonso-bedoya.jpg)
Send in the Drone Ranger.
(http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/24/130524_drone_ranger_mad_magazine_courtesy_850.jpg)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria-said-be-hiding-weapons-moving-troops
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 03, 2013, 07:09:39 AM
Why?
Same question I have asked since 2001...and before. Why would we be concerned enough about that cheap little tin-horn dictator who just happened to kill a couple hundred thousand of the people in his country he didn't like...? Where is the compelling 'need' to attack and depose him with the full force of our military? (Especially since we provided him the means to do that...) And even MORE - the fact that we killed another 800,000+ performing that "liberation" of the people of Iraq!! And as a nation, we see NO inconsistency in these facts....
It certainly had NOTHING to do with humanitarian reasons... else we would have done something in Congo, Uganda, Rwanda - WAY before doing anything in Iraq!!
Or is there something "worse" about killing 1,400 people with gas than there is from killing a million with clubs and machete's...??
But wait...what is missing from this discussion so far...?? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
Oil.
You're living in the past. Those were different players, different times, different histories. We let this go by and the other crazies are watching. North Korea, Iran, every tinhorn tyrant in a band uniform. We also lose moral standing. Leadership in the world is tough.
Use a simple business cost/benefit analysis. We have more to lose by ignoring crimes against humanity...today, not yesterday...than we have to gain. We have more to gain by sternly, but narrowly responding than we have to keep walking by with our head down cause it might cause a scene.
400 children with no particular political beliefs were murdered.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 03, 2013, 07:35:52 PM
You're living in the past. Those were different players, different times, different histories. We let this go by and the other crazies are watching. North Korea, Iran, every tinhorn tyrant in a band uniform. We also lose moral standing. Leadership in the world is tough.
Use a simple business cost/benefit analysis. We have more to lose by ignoring crimes against humanity...today, not yesterday...than we have to gain. We have more to gain by sternly, but narrowly responding than we have to keep walking by with our head down cause it might cause a scene.
400 children with no particular political beliefs were murdered.
Same ole, same ole...history repeating itself again. Like it always does. And we make rationalizations and excuses that somehow it is different. It's not.
Yep, 400 murdered - that's horrendous. And on that same day, probably 21,000 children died of dysentery, malaria, starvation, violence and other causes - diseases and events that are manageable in great part and whose deaths are mostly preventable. 7,600,000 per year. That's the problem with looking at just today, with no consideration of yesterday - rationalizations and excuses. As so many times in the past, I submit we are we have no sense of perspective. Relate this to the mote in one's eye compared to the beam in another's.
What this IS moving toward - and I suspect there is much more intent than coincidence - is the entire mid-east is now being 'taken over' by Al Qaeda and related factions. There has been a concerted effort that certainly has all appearances of being intentional to support regime change across the entire area. The world has had an Al Qaeda supporting faction in Iran for 30+ years (note the "coincidental" alignment to the Reagan years and the beginning of the rise of the RWRE...?) and apparently that wasn't quite enough to stimulate the desired end game. Our support and hope for Saddam Hussein in Iraq was that enough spillover of the conflict would start other 'bonfires' in the region. Didn't work, so we had to get rid of him - and notice how that brought about another similar regime - aligned philosophically with Iran - in Iraq.
So, since the Muammar Gaddafi had shut up and set down - was not doing anything related to terrorism anymore - and Tunisia was hurting, but not really focusing on terrorism, something had to be done. Support for the "Arab Spring". So, now we have an Islamist government (read that as the kind of people who support Al Qaeda) as well as one in Libya and another in Egypt, at least for a little while. The whole area is now being turned into radical Islamist governments/regimes. And we want it for Syria. Jordan will be next. And we have been messing with Afghanistan - talking with the Taliban so we can let them back in power without embarrassment. And Pakistan is already pretty radical for the most part. So, when all the new regimes get settled in and start talking to each other, they WILL turn their attention to Israel.
Which is highly likely to start a conflict that will require a LOT more of our help. It will likely be fairly large in scale, since the Islamists are gonna have the support China and Gog,....er, uh, Russia, that mysterious country to the north. Which conveniently brings on a conflict of such scale that it could possibly be billed as at least resembling 'Armageddon'. Seems like someone is trying to force God's hand....
Sounds kind of far fetched...until you step back and look at the scale of religious radicalism that engulfs the world today. Both Islamist and Christian. This is not an effort that spans days, weeks or even years. It spans decades and centuries - and started long ago. And today we have the infrastructure and technology to actually make it happen. God will be so proud..!!
Again, the situation IS that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are killing each other. And we should stop that, why?
Of course, it could all fall apart with one good zombie epidemic outbreak....
Quote from: AquaMan on September 03, 2013, 07:35:52 PM
You're living in the past. Those were different players, different times, different histories. We let this go by and the other crazies are watching. North Korea, Iran, every tinhorn tyrant in a band uniform. We also lose moral standing. Leadership in the world is tough.
Use a simple business cost/benefit analysis. We have more to lose by ignoring crimes against humanity...today, not yesterday...than we have to gain. We have more to gain by sternly, but narrowly responding than we have to keep walking by with our head down cause it might cause a scene.
400 children with no particular political beliefs were murdered.
When President Clinton made that exact same IDENTICAL CASE in 1998, I was all for it. Most of us were lulled into the illogical proposition that punishing an irrational person would somehow result in rational behavior.
"He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
These actions have never resolved with the consequences we naively anticipate. In this case, we have decided to be even more detached. The president has opted to present a plan without a goal. In fact, he has stated as much, that the strikes are not intended to cause regime change, take out any bad guys, or aid the rebels in their civil war. The purpose of the strike is only to "send a message." It's a ballistic telegram that says "you are naughty, and we are better than you."
As history has shown, when we take egotistical actions without clear external goals or aspirations, they lead to amplification of the very behaviors we wish to display distain for.
We can't be isolationists, but we shouldn't be the police. This president has shown an affinity for swift, clandestine, lethal action. He has ordered the deaths of hundreds, and killed hundreds more inadvertently with his drone program. These people were executed for sharing information, associating, or just being near people we felt could someday be a threat to US interests. Now we have a dictator who has blatantly defied the world, vowed to destroy US allies and interests, and murdered hundreds of thousands of people to retain power, and our president's solution is to put on a show, a display, an exhibition. This is political narcissism, and nothing more.
Intensions are not results!
Our lawmakers are really taking this seriously.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a
(http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/12/21/330439.jpg)
Oh, my!So. . .WE didn't set a red line? But I thought that we. . .
Come on, admit it, George Bush set the red line, and Congress approved it.
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Meme007_zpsff771cf2.jpg)
Red line? I didn't draw that, somebody else did!
When Rangle calls you "embarrassing" that's a special kind of embarrassing.
(http://i2.wp.com/thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Charlie-Rangel-Obama-Come-Clean.jpg?resize=600%2C250)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 07:29:51 AM
We can't be isolationists, but we shouldn't be the police. This president has shown an affinity for swift, clandestine, lethal action. He has ordered the deaths of hundreds, and killed hundreds more inadvertently with his drone program. These people were executed for sharing information, associating, or just being near people we felt could someday be a threat to US interests. Now we have a dictator who has blatantly defied the world, vowed to destroy US allies and interests, and murdered hundreds of thousands of people to retain power, and our president's solution is to put on a show, a display, an exhibition. This is political narcissism, and nothing more.
Intensions are not results!
Welcome to Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama World!! It is a mad, hysterical, carnival fun-house type place where video games rule the skies with real bombs attached to the other end!! Yay, Team!!
Progressives finally find some common ground with the majority of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and event he Tea Party!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/sep/4/liberals-reject-obamas-case-syria-strikes-believe-/
PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can't find any allies.
Indeed, a majority of the activists don't believe Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are being honest when they lay out their justifications for taking military action.
Four out of five activists also said they believe U.S. action will lead to deeper involvement in the civil war.
PCCC detailed the findings, which came from a three-day survey of its activists, in a memo to congressional Democrats.
President Obama has finally become the "Great Uniter." Now we just wait for the sea levels to fall. :)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 12:22:09 PM
Now we just wait for the sea levels to fall. :)
Global Freezing?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 04, 2013, 12:30:20 PM
Global Freezing?
Climate Change! or Climate Catastrophe, or my new favorite "Global Weirding."
Please try to keep up.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 12:33:01 PM
Climate Change! or Climate Catastrophe, or my new favorite "Global Weirding."
Please try to keep up.
With your ADHD posting, it's quite a challenge.
Maybe you should invest in Ritalin?
Quote from: Hoss on September 04, 2013, 12:38:59 PM
With your ADHD posting, it's quite a challenge.
Maybe you should invest in Ritalin?
Are you ridiculing people with a medical condition?
It is more than likely smoke inhalation
You guys are really messed up. You set constructs that you assure yourselves are accurate and factual even though you have no particular inside information and no good sources for your assertions. Then when reality doesn't match up with your constructs you go weird with cartoon pics, spin and half truths.
Past is prologue. It isn't totally predictive.
Speaker Boehner, McCain and other leading republicans and conservatives seem to think Obama has a plan. They also feel that some response is necessary that doesn't include full out war. I suspect they are better briefed than locals on TN or congressmen from OK. Yet, Gas doesn't recognize that and H, you sound downright paranoid,cynical and ready for a tin hat fitting.
Solutions aren't very forthcoming but I assume you both support just jamming our heads deeper into the sand till bad people just go away. Unfortunately there is not enough sand and they aren't going away.
We teach them nothing by destroying their gas stockpiles or making them pay a price for using them. There is no teaching without students. But they must recognize that touching a hot stove burns.
For those who take Gas's...gas...as truly representative of unvarnished factual reporting, both of you, I present excerpts from a very slanted Yahoo article, with a headline barely related to its text:
President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that Congress and the world will lose credibility if Bashar Assad's alleged chemical weapons massacre goes unpunished.
"My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line, and America and Congress' credibility is on the line," Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden.
"I do have to ask people, well, if, in fact, you're outraged by the slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it?" Obama asked. "The moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing."
"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line," he insisted. "The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war."
And
"Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated, in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act, that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for," he added.
The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria never signed, does not call for unilateral military force in response to violations by countries not party to the treaty. The Syria Accountability Act imposes tough economic sanctions on Syria, but it does not envision unilateral military force.
Obama insisted on Wednesday, "that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
His arguments recalled then-President George W. Bush's warnings in the runup to the invasion of Iraq that world credibility was on the line because of a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions warning Saddam Hussein about possessing weapons of mass destruction, and Bush's insistence that Congress' credibility was at stake because it passed the Iraq Liberation Act that made "regime change" official U.S. policy.
"I'm very mindful of the fact that around the world and here in Europe in particular, there are still memories of Iraq," Obama said.
"Keep in mind, I'm somebody who opposed the war in Iraq and am not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on faulty intelligence," he added. "We believe very strongly, with high confidence, that in fact chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad was the source."
Obama's comments came as the deeply divided Congress wrestled with whether to approve legislation granting him authorization to use force against Syria.
Asked what he would do if lawmakers rejected the measure, Obama bluntly told lawmakers that he does not need their permission to strike Syria. And he challenged Congress to do more than "sit on the sidelines (and) snipe."
"As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress," Obama said.
"But I did not take this to Congress just because it's an empty exercise; I think it's important to have Congress's support on it," Obama said at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
The president expressed confidence that Congress will ultimately give him its green light for military action against the Syrian president's forces, whom Washington accuses of massacring civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21.
"I believe Congress will approve it," he said.
"We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad's calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again," Obama said.
"What I'm talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again," the president said.
"It's important for us to get out of the habit of just saying, 'well, we'll let the president kind of stretch the boundaries of his authority as far as he can. Congress will sit on the sidelines, snipe. If it works, the sniping will be a little less. If it doesn't, a little more.' But either way, the American people and their representatives are not fully invested in what are tough choices," Obama said.
It's fair to say most politicians of both parties and all ideological stripes will flip flop positions for partisan calculation or political opportunity. Nonetheless, it's also fair to take the President at his word. Obama in 2002:
"Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Obama in 2007:
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."
It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.
Quote from: DTowner on September 04, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
It's fair to say most politicians of both parties and all ideological stripes will flip flop positions for partisan calculation or political opportunity. Nonetheless, it's also fair to take the President at his word. Obama in 2002:
"Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Obama in 2007:
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."
It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.
Correct, and I think that is exactly what is happening.
While there will always be sycophantic cult of Obama who will strive to parse their own, and the president's historical stance on an undeniably identical situation, I am pleasantly surprised to see groups, of paradoxically dissimilar political opinion, coming together over what has proven to be a poor course of action, both historically, and globally.
As President Obama would say, this is a "teachable moment", and we are all students.
The war for freedom will never really be won because the price of our freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our Government. – Eleanor Roosevelt
The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war and they are screened at once from scrutiny. – William Ellery Channing (1780-1842)
Senate passed the resolution. They rushed it through committee so that the House won't have time to craft an alternative resolution.
Looks like we will have to bomb Syria to see what's in it.
Quote from: DTowner on September 04, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
It's fair to say most politicians of both parties and all ideological stripes will flip flop positions for partisan calculation or political opportunity. Nonetheless, it's also fair to take the President at his word. Obama in 2002:
"Now let me be clear--I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
http://web.archive.org/web/20090108155556/http:/en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Obama in 2007:
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."
It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.
You want to go back and square your positions with your statements 6 to 10 years ago? Before you became so worldly and knowledgeable about your profession? He was a candidate and that was a decade ago. Americans and Representatives who spend their time asking such questions are naive and wasting time. Politics, yeah, whatever. Decisions are being made based on today's situations and they are still a decade behind. Besides, those were questions about troops being committed. This is much narrower.
Gaspar:
Quoting Budhha rather loosely, "The teaching begins when the student arrives".
You're stuck in traffic.
Perhaps. . .
Share your feelings, opinions, and logic on the strike on Syria. Do you feel there is reason for US action?. . . I mean beyond the typical blind drone strike?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 04, 2013, 08:55:19 PM
Perhaps. . .
Share your feelings, opinions, and logic on the strike on Syria. Do you feel there is reason for US action?. . . I mean beyond the typical blind drone strike?
Um...do you read anyone else's posts? I made my opinion known farther up. One of the few times Guido and I agree on something (in principle if not in execution).
As much as I feel Obama has completely f'd up his messaging on this intervention, I have to believe he has the interests of the U.S. in mind. I do not believe he wants to attack Syria because of any loss of credibility over this "red line". I truly believe he believes this is a WMD proliferation issue, and I believe he believes failure to respond to a WMD attack would embolden Iran. Obama has never led me to believe he is a warmonger, but the photos of those dead children, gassed by their leader, is what is motivating him. Maybe he was reminded of all those murdered Kurdish children who were also gassed.
A nation willing to unleash an uncontrollable, indiscriminate, mass casualty-causing weapon on their own people would have ZERO qualms unleashing the same on other countries or perhaps give them to other people to use on other countries. I continue to support Obama on this, and when it hits the fan, I would hope that this country (and the world) would rally around him.
Quote from: DTowner on September 04, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
It is not unreasonable for Americans and our representatives in Congress to ask that President Obama square his past position with his current one before blessing this latest adventure in the Mid-East.
No, it isn't unreasonable. I just think at this point it is irrelevant. Obama has decided that Syria poses a threat to this country, and I believe him. What he said in 2002-2003 or in 2007 does not make his belief about Syria (or the threat Assad poses) any more or less likely.
edited. And if called upon, I would suit up and fight under his command--just like I would have under W.
Quote from: guido911 on September 04, 2013, 09:26:04 PM
Obama has decided that Syria poses a threat to this country
Now hold on. I haven't commented on this thread because, well, I just don't think it makes a difference and both sides have been pretty well represented by the various factions. But Obama has not suggested that Syria poses a threat to this country. His position is (if you believe what he says, and even though I am against engagement I do think he is sincere) that we engage on principle because of Syria's use of chemical weapons, with some tangential references to regional threats, how it would look to Iran, etc. But Syria as an actual direct threat to the US? Not even close.
I'm almost certain we will end up engaging, but I am not convinced that it is warranted, that it will have any real effect, or that the outcome will be in our favor in the long run.
^^^I guess I got confused when Obama warned Syrian chemical weapons posed a threat to us.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10272874/Barack-Obama-warns-of-Syria-chemical-weapons-threat-to-US.html
Read it again. He doesn't say that Syria is a direct threat. He says the stockpile could be a threat, indirectly, if Syria loses control and the weapons get into the hands of terrorist organizations:
"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organisations, that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons, that can have devastating effects, could be directed at us and we want to make sure that that does not happen,"
Which of course IS a possibility, especially if we help hasten the fall with our own military. Unless of course we think we can safely assure that all of the current stockpile will end up in the hands of "friendlies" when/if Assad falls? Not likely.
Quote from: rebound on September 04, 2013, 10:56:32 PM
Read it again. He doesn't say that Syria is a direct threat. He says the stockpile could be a threat, indirectly, if Syria loses control and the weapons get into the hands of terrorist organizations:
"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time their control of chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organisations, that in the past have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons, that can have devastating effects, could be directed at us and we want to make sure that that does not happen,"
Which of course IS a possibility, especially if we help hasten the fall with our own military. Unless of course we think we can safely assure that all of the current stockpile will end up in the hands of "friendlies" when/if Assad falls? Not likely.
This is what you wrote: "But Obama has not suggested that Syria poses a threat to this country." I provided you a link, now this...
(http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/Backpedal.jpg)
Nice pic, but I quoted you first. Your first quote says nothing about the weapons. I countered that with a position that Obama did not say Syria was a direct threat to the US. Your second post speaks to the chemical weapons, and you post the link (which I quoted) where Obama specifically talks about the weapons stockpile, not Syria directly. To paraphrase Clinton, it depends upon what "Syria" means.
He is specifically not arguing Syria is a direct threat. He is saying the weapons are a threat, if they somehow get out of Syria's control. Which is again obviously true, and is great political slight of hand, and is a great way to convince some people that "we must do something". To suggest that Syria would directly use those weapons against the US is ridiculous, and he knows it. But to suggest that they might lose control of them and somebody else might use them against us is at least arguable.
But if you follow that line of thought, since the weapons already exist and we can't readily destroy them or guarantee their security if the regime falls, would it not make more sense (from a purely "secure the weapons" standpoint) to actually help stabilize the regime, instead of trying to take it down? The "loose weapons" argument is a political canard designed to confuse the easily swayed.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/9680499038_1c81e1e422.jpg)
Welcome back to the cold war.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/05/obama-kerry-putin-syria-russia-g-20/2769683/
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/a34b8f2f2b07a72552ed1f13936a27c8abcc85ba/c=132-0-3995-2914&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/theOval/2013/09/05/1378380990000-AP-Russia-Putin-002.jpg)
Our French ally...
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00448/135965939__448327c.jpg)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3860487.ece
I just found out that I am on the same side as Howard Dean...
Quote from: guido911 on September 05, 2013, 06:50:30 PM
Our French ally...
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00448/135965939__448327c.jpg)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3860487.ece
"That's Chief Inspector Clouseau."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTPhrINIIAAsvq-.jpg)
Now it seems very likely that this will not pass a House vote by any stretch, and several in the Senate are also having reservations now that the scope has begun to creep and international support (the little that exists) has vanished.
We now have a Marine landing vessel included with our forces and 300 assault troops. The president is also expanding his list of targets because all of the early warnings allowed Assad to move forces and equipment into neighborhoods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html?hp&_r=1&
If Congress says NO. I believe that President Obama will abide by that, at least I hope.
Both Democrat and Republican support for the president is at an all time low, and there is suspicion that, like Benghazi, intelligence reports may have been manipulated to make the president's case.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/09/05/alan-grayson-syria-intelligence-manipulated
Funny, how just a few years ago, these guys were the bad guys that we were trying to kill, now we want to make their our allies.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/06/syria-video-turns-the-debate-on-u-s-intervention.html
As NPR originally reported back in August, and now Russia seems to be presenting evidence to support, the Al Qaeda backed rebels may be responsible for the chemical attacks in an effort to goad the west into taking action against Assad.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.UinmcGRATGc
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/
If so, the embarrassing rebuke by Congress may actually be a blessing in disguise for President Obama.
It seems like we may have a case of "ready, fire, aim" again.
And he's gained precious little support from our allies at the G-20 conference.
I'm curious why the 98,000 people killed before the chemical attacks wasn't enough of a trigger for us to sound the alarm much earlier? Why does the manner in how these people died make the mission more or less of a priority? Chemical weaponry doesn't make them any deader than an AK-47 or mortar round.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2013, 09:56:25 AM
And he's gained precious little support from our allies at the G-20 conference.
I'm curious why the 98,000 people killed before the chemical attacks wasn't enough of a trigger for us to sound the alarm much earlier? Why does the manner in how these people died make the mission more or less of a priority? Chemical weaponry doesn't make them any deader than an AK-47 or mortar round.
Because he made the "Red Line" statement that he is currently trying to blame on everyone else for.
"I didn't draw a red line. Somebody else did that."
Shoots mouth off, then has to incompetently attempt to back it up. Recurring theme.
And yet, these 1400 are somehow more significant than the tens of millions....
Just a sampling - very graphic, very disturbing, go here at your own risk.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/africa-atrocities-pictures/15969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEMOtmgNx0
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2013, 10:57:30 AM
Because he made the "Red Line" statement that he is currently trying to blame on everyone else for.
"I didn't draw a red line. Somebody else did that."
Shoots mouth off, then has to incompetently attempt to back it up. Recurring theme.
Now now. You make it sound as if he's constantly blaming everyone else for his love ups and takes credit for other's successes. Let's not exaggerate here.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2013, 12:35:34 PM
Now now. You make it sound as if he's constantly blaming everyone else for his love ups and takes credit for other's successes. Let's not exaggerate here.
Must be my ODS again. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2013, 10:57:30 AM
Because he made the "Red Line" statement that he is currently trying to blame on everyone else for.
"I didn't draw a red line. Somebody else did that."
Shoots mouth off, then has to incompetently attempt to back it up. Recurring theme.
Huh. Just like you.
Iraq has vowed to attack US interests if we attack Syria, and Putin has agreed to support Syria if we attack.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414139/Syria-Russia-vows-help-Syria-America-carries-military-strikes-Assad-s-regime.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
This has to be a record for eroding international relations.
This is getting more and more surreal every day.
(http://d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/dd-e1378392876791.jpg)
Guido was right. We should have punished the leader quickly and without warning so the cult of anti couldn't get traction. All they would be left to do is complain that a Dem did the same thing, the same way their predecessors did. I have not been a supporter of an imperial presidency. I may have to change that view. By the time an issue has to go before a partisan, poorly informed, paid for Congress and the anti's get geared up...its too late to do anything meaningful.
"Truth never damages a cause that is just."
― Mahatma Gandhi
Yes you should strive for truth. It is a worthy effort you've spent little time on. Justice is a good one too.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 06, 2013, 01:38:05 PM
Guido was right. We should have punished the leader quickly and without warning so the cult of anti couldn't get traction. All they would be left to do is complain that a Dem did the same thing, the same way their predecessors did. I have not been a supporter of an imperial presidency. I may have to change that view. By the time an issue has to go before a partisan, poorly informed, paid for Congress and the anti's get geared up...its too late to do anything meaningful.
Buck up. Obama may get his war anyway. He's not completly ruled out taking action without Congress.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414017/Obama-plans-address-Americans-Tuesday-hes-set-lose-big-House-vote-White-House-aide-hints-wont-strike-Syria-Congress.html
He doesn't want a war. That's what I mean by truth and spin. And your pics are at the very least beneath the dignity of someone with your brains and professional background. It diminishes you.
If Obama wanted a war, he seems to me the kind of guy who would already have acted.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 06, 2013, 02:15:12 PM
He doesn't want a war. That's what I mean by truth and spin. And your pics are at the very least beneath the dignity of someone with your brains and professional background. It diminishes you.
If Obama wanted a war, he seems to me the kind of guy who would already have acted.
For a President who doesn't want a war, he's sure working hard at picking one right now.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2013, 02:20:49 PM
For a President who doesn't want a war, he's sure working hard at picking one right now.
I work with people who are genuinely unhappy, profoundly uneducated and seriously hostile even to their own friends and family. They hate unions, bosses, those who make money and those who suffer poverty. Anything you say, can and will be used against you! I suppose they also have that sentiment of others looking to pick a fight with them from those around them. I can identify with Obama's predicament. So many people are hopeful for his failure in all things.
He could step back and just be a second term l'aissez faire pres, like so many have done before him. He could concentrate on sending out positive press releases like the one today that showed the ACA is not as expensive as thought and is working for those states who embrace it. He could generate numbers to focus on economic improvements over 2008. But no, he seems to think he has a job worth doing in spite of those groups.
He's not playing the political game very well.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 06, 2013, 02:15:12 PM
He doesn't want a war. That's what I mean by truth and spin. And your pics are at the very least beneath the dignity of someone with your brains and professional background. It diminishes you.
If Obama wanted a war, he seems to me the kind of guy who would already have acted.
What does he want then? What are his goals?
Sure, he has articulated that he wants to "send a message," but to do so, would require some achievement or positive outcome beyond the fireworks. There would need to be some plan. Regime change? Nope. Elimination of chemical weaponry? Nope. The only thing he has failed to articulate is the actual goal (beyond some twisted form of destructive communication).
As he has proven in the past with all of his policies, he remains blind to the unintended consequences of his actions (and inaction in many cases). At this point, no matter what action he takes, the US has damaged relations with allies and invigorated our enemies.
The concept of leadership escapes him because he has always been able to accomplish his goals through speeches alone. His own words consistently betray him and it seems that has now culminated in a choice between domestic and international humiliation or unilateral war. Neither of which are particularly attractive to him, but that's the choice he has.
Here is how things look as of 17 minutes ago. Things are changing quickly and not in the President's favor.
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Syria-Whip-Count-graphic_090613.2-011.png)
A fourth Russian destroyer is now positioning itself across from our fleet.
Good read on what's happening in Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/06/alliance-of-tea-party-libertarians-and-anti-war-dems-looks-like-the-real-thing/
We are seeing some wonderful unity.
(http://bahstigerlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/donkeyelephant.gif)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2013, 03:35:48 PM
Good read on what's happening in Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/06/alliance-of-tea-party-libertarians-and-anti-war-dems-looks-like-the-real-thing/
We are seeing some wonderful unity.
(http://bahstigerlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/donkeyelephant.gif)
What's that? Finally after five and a half years President Obama is uniting someone?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
What's that? Finally after five and a half years President Obama is uniting someone?
There is always Hope for Change.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2013, 03:45:48 PM
There is always Hope for Change.
Hope in one hand...
...and I hope you've got a big roll of toilet paper.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2013, 02:20:49 PM
For a President who doesn't want a war, he's sure working hard at picking one right now.
If he was working that hard for it, we would have seen some response to the at least three prior times chemical weapons were used in Syria.
Obama is the
farthest thing from a warmongering president I can recall. I simply refuse to believe he would spend millions and millions of dollars in military hardware and risk escalation and loss of American lives because his red line got crossed. I believe him about WMD, and back him still. I also hope he hits a home run with the American people on Monday during his interviews.
He MUST follow through, regardless of the outcome of his Congress gambit. Doing NOTHING at this point is the worst thing, sends the worst message.
Oh, and this statement from some Iran f&ckstain directed at Obama's daughter has not helped:
QuoteAs Congress debates whether to support President Obama's call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad's regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.
Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that "[w]e will support Syria to the end."
And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama's daughters should the United States attack Syria.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/#ixzz2eHXLnPO3
The Chinese have just dispatched their enormous amphibious assault ship, the Jinggangshan to Syrian waters to be stationed alongside the Russian fleet.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YkuHKBtL6f4/UBiIeLdRvRI/AAAAAAAACMs/vcLohA91Pzs/s1600/f0def16728a1117749c018.jpeg)
It's a massive ship loaded with 20 amphibious assault vehicles and helicopters.
Is it the Sum Ting Wong?
Quote from: guido911 on September 09, 2013, 03:21:53 PM
Is it the Sum Ting Wong?
No I think it's Wi Tu Lo, Ho Le Fuk, or Bang Ding Ow
Obama: "There is no alternative to tiny insignificant military strikes!"
Putin: "Syria, Surender your chemical weapons."
Obama: "Oh yeah, there is that."
Putin: "Moron."
I think this may be the first time Russia ever made the USA look stupid. They've come a long way from banging shoes on the table!
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/6/18/1340052309864/putin-obama-syria-stateme-008.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2013, 07:45:02 AM
Obama: "There is no alternative to tiny insignificant military strikes!"
Putin: "Syria, Surender your chemical weapons."
Obama: "Oh yeah, there is that."
Putin: "Moron."
I believe it is unlikely that
any US President could have gotten Syria to give up their chemical weapons without the help of Russia.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 10, 2013, 12:27:34 PM
I believe it is unlikely that any US President could have gotten Syria to give up their chemical weapons without the help of Russia.
Perhaps we should have asked them for their help in the first place?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/surprise-russian-proposal-catches-obama-between-putin-and-house-republicans.html?hp&_r=0
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 10, 2013, 12:27:34 PM
I believe it is unlikely that any US President could have gotten Syria to give up their chemical weapons without the help of Russia.
Ask W? I believe he has an opinion based on Libya.
Quote from: guido911 on September 10, 2013, 01:19:12 PM
Ask W? I believe he has an opinion based on Libya.
Good luck! Unlike some former presidents, W does not comment on the policies of a sitting president.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2013, 01:20:23 PM
Good luck! Unlike some former presidents, W does not comment on the policies of a sitting president.
The question was rhetorical. Libya is an example of a government that gave up its WMD with ZERO help from Russia. The ol' fear of "shock and awe" scared the biden out of Qaddafi.
Quote from: guido911 on September 10, 2013, 09:01:38 PM
The question was rhetorical. Libya is an example of a government that gave up its WMD with ZERO help from Russia. The ol' fear of "shock and awe" scared the biden out of Qaddafi.
Who cares who gets Assad's hands off the chemical weapons so long as it achieves a better ending than killing innocent civilians as collateral damage? We should have told Putin to put his beotch on a short leash a few weeks ago instead of being ready to lob missiles for the sake of lobbing missiles.
The whole objective is to keep him from killing his own citizens and neighbors in the region, right?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 10, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Who cares who gets Assad's hands off the chemical weapons so long as it achieves a better ending than killing innocent civilians as collateral damage? We should have told Putin to put his beotch on a short leash a few weeks ago instead of being ready to lob missiles for the sake of lobbing missiles.
The whole objective is to keep him from killing his own citizens and neighbors in the region, right?
No. The objective is to blame Bush.
Obama did a decent job making his case tonight. I only wish he hadn't stepped on his lund so much at the beginning..
Ain't no need to blame Bush for anything other than what was obvious. He made his mistakes, Obama is making his. Neither gets much credit for their good decisions.
I will be pleased if this is handled without military response.
note. I will be even more pleased should he be held responsible for his atrocities by the rest of the world. Any justice is better than none.
Why do we keep doing this?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6821642120_af91c66389.jpg)
Got no problem with Putin taking the lead and pulling President Obama out of the embarrassment he would otherwise face from Congress, but it seems he's not done with us, and the media is willing to give him as much of a platform as he desires. There is blood in the water and Putin is an experienced shark.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/321859-criticism-of-putins-op-ed-builds-among-lawmakers
Putin is #WINNING and we look completely lost.
Freekin amateur hour in the US!
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2013, 10:48:33 AM
Why do we keep doing this?
Haven't Syria and Russia been boyfriend/girlfriend for years?
Obviously your mind has been blown. Maybe have a chocolate.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2013, 10:48:33 AM
Why do we keep doing this?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6821642120_af91c66389.jpg)
Got no problem with Putin taking the lead and pulling President Obama out of the embarrassment he would otherwise face from Congress, but it seems he's not done with us, and the media is willing to give him as much of a platform as he desires. There is blood in the water and Putin is an experienced shark.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/321859-criticism-of-putins-op-ed-builds-among-lawmakers
Putin is #WINNING and we look completely lost.
Freekin amateur hour in the US!
With this "crisis", Obama has finally proven what many of us have known about him since his inauguration:
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm7250LYZ21qh5i0uo1_400.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2013, 11:26:05 AM
With this "crisis", Obama has finally proven what many of us have known about him since his inauguration:
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm7250LYZ21qh5i0uo1_400.jpg)
Well this is fairly harsh but accurate:
We have a president heedless of his duty to uphold the Constitution by keeping the government within its confines, disdainful of international law when it fails to suit his purposes, and contemptuous of a Congress he once controlled when it feels the heat from the American people who have had enough of being lied to and tricked into wars. The American people have come to realize that war is the mother's milk of big government: It kills innocents, increases taxes or borrowing, diminishes personal freedom, and unleashes irrational fears and hatreds, and the government continues to grow.
While all of this has been consuming us, the federal debt is approaching $17 trillion and Obama wants to borrow another trillion, the NSA has been exposed as spying on every computer and every mobile phone in the country for the past two years at the insistence of the Obama administration, and the fiscal bankruptcy of Obamacare is now just below the horizon.
Does the president really expect the American people to approve his bombing and killing just to avoid his personal embarrassment? Or is it his professional incompetence he wants to hide?
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/12/obamas-incompetent-and-unconstitutional
Chuckle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ
Good news! Russia's Lavrov says that he has persuaded Kerry to solve the Syrian problem "professionally" instead of through war. Syria has agreed to sign a chemical weapons ban and both Russia and Syria have agreed to continued negotiations in Geneva.
Meanwhile Russia is increasing it's fleet to 10 battle and missile cruisers to monitor the situation.
Cooler heads prevail.
Unfortunately the CIA has begun it's gun running operation to the rebels.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/cia-starts-shipping-weapons-syrian-rebel-fighters/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/
Meet the rebels.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20348901-not-one-of-bad-guys-but-syrian-rebel-group-proclaims-anti-american-bent?lite
Quote from Elizebeth O'Bagy the researcher sited by Kerry and McCain during the Obamawar push:
"I have also reviewed a Facebook site ... that purports to be associated with the al Aqsa (Islamic) brigades," she stated in the affidavit. "The facebook site does not appear to be particularly jihadist in orientation, and posts videos associated with groups that are all affiliated with the Free Syrian Army."
They don't look particularly Jihadist on their facebook page, do they?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7432/9733268849_9dae3f4396.jpg)(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/___lfxOzRvDs/SPgUu2dfSLI/AAAAAAAAASo/yKpNCNeFFTw/s400/mccain_wow.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUN65XHCIAEdwUw.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2013, 11:55:45 AM
Well this is fairly harsh but accurate:
We have a president heedless of his duty to uphold the Constitution by keeping the government within its confines, disdainful of international law when it fails to suit his purposes, and contemptuous of a Congress he once controlled when it feels the heat from the American people who have had enough of being lied to and tricked into wars. The American people have come to realize that war is the mother's milk of big government: It kills innocents, increases taxes or borrowing, diminishes personal freedom, and unleashes irrational fears and hatreds, and the government continues to grow.
While all of this has been consuming us, the federal debt is approaching $17 trillion and Obama wants to borrow another trillion, the NSA has been exposed as spying on every computer and every mobile phone in the country for the past two years at the insistence of the Obama administration, and the fiscal bankruptcy of Obamacare is now just below the horizon.
Does the president really expect the American people to approve his bombing and killing just to avoid his personal embarrassment? Or is it his professional incompetence he wants to hide?
You are like that cell phone commercial where the guy is introduced to the customers and he is always answering one question off...you are always posting one President off....
....had enough of being lied to and tricked into wars by the "one off" President...yeah, you know who it is....
NSA - well you at least got one significant digit right...but rather than 2 years, it is 20 + years NSA has been doing this stuff....
"One off" President got the American people to bomb and kill to get paybacks for Daddy's embarrassment, so yeah, I guess that is kind of almost accurate....
"One off" President wanting to hide his ignorance...absolutely! Maybe that's why he just took attention off of that by giving the German Chancellor her massage!
Perspective...it's always 20 to 1 with the RWRE...focusing, compulsing and convulsing over 1 item while ignoring the 20 (or 50! or 100!!). Mote in one's eye versus the beam in the other...
Quote
9/9/2013:
REPORTER: Is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack?
JOHN KERRY: Uh, sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week, turn it
over. All of it. Without delay. And allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously.
"Putin is angry. He thinks the United States doesn't take him seriously or treat Russia as a major player. Okay, fine, that's how he feels. If I were president, I'd get in a room with him and say, 'Look at the slaughter going on in Syria. You can stop it. Do it, and I'll see to it that you can get all the credit. I'll tell the world it was you who saved the innocent children of Syria from slaughter. You'll be an international hero. You'll go down in history.' Hell, Putin would go to bed thinking, 'That's not a bad offer.' There will still be plenty of other issues I'd have with Russia. But instead of looking for one huge deal that settles everything, you take a piece of the problem and solve it. Give an incentive for good behavior. Show the other guy his self-interest. Everybody has an ego. Everybody needs dignity. And what
does it cost? You get what you want you give up nothing."
-- FOX News chief Roger Ailes
And I get that Fox opposes a Syria peace plan because its modus operandi is to foment dissent in the form of a relentless and irrational contrarianism to Barack Obama on all things democratic, to advance its ultimate objective of creating a deliberately misinformed body politic whose fear, anger, mistrust, and discontent is the manna upon which it sustains its parasitic succubus-like existence.
-- Jon Stewart
Since "chess" has been batted around as the game so many leaders in the Syria issue are playing, I figured Garry Kasparov's tweet should end this meme:
QuoteI wrote it about chess & business, but it applies to Obama & Syria: If you change your strategy frequently you don't really have one.
On the rabid right wing front, Dennis Kucinich is interviewing Assad.
Why I like John Stewart,
"And I get that Fox opposes a Syria peace plan because its modus operandi is to foment dissent in the form of a relentless and irrational contrarianism to Barack Obama on all things democratic, to advance its ultimate objective of creating a deliberately misinformed body politic whose fear, anger, mistrust, and discontent is the manna upon which it sustains its parasitic succubus-like existence."
-- Jon Stewart
And its working actually. Saw the most disgusting bumper sticker in modern times the other day, "I love my country. But I fear our government".
This way the guy gets to be a patriot and a conspiracist at the same time.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 18, 2013, 06:21:24 PM
Why I like John Stewart,
"And I get that Fox opposes a Syria peace plan because its modus operandi is to foment dissent in the form of a relentless and irrational contrarianism to Barack Obama on all things democratic, to advance its ultimate objective of creating a deliberately misinformed body politic whose fear, anger, mistrust, and discontent is the manna upon which it sustains its parasitic succubus-like existence."
-- Jon Stewart
I heard/saw Stewart's rant. I was thinking the same thing about his M.O. when it came to Bush. Another thing, in a time where the president has been f'ing up like crazy with his public comments and handling the Syria issue, why in the hell is Stewart talking about Fox freakin News? He did the same smile recently with respect to Michelle Bachman's comments in Egypt. Hey, look over here. Can't make my BFF Obama look bad. Even his picking on Obama's decisions is done with kid gloves. He also kinda forgot to mention Obama's own party (and his former officials) balking at the Syria plan. Bring back Jon Oliver. Funnier, and more balanced.
Think of Stewart like people thought of Will Rogers back in the 30's. He is a comedian and looks to both parties and all players for material. He simply gets better material from the conservatives, t-partiers and Republicans. But his best bet is to stay non aligned and use them all. Obama is by nature pretty good material.
Think of Fox as modern day Pravda.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 19, 2013, 05:33:36 AM
Think of Stewart like people thought of Will Rogers back in the 30's. He is a comedian and looks to both parties and all players for material. He simply gets better material from the conservatives, t-partiers and Republicans. But his best bet is to stay non aligned and use them all. Obama is by nature pretty good material.
Think of Fox as modern day Pravda.
I agree with your analogy about Stewart to some extent, but Pravda was the Soviet government's newspaper. Stories were initiated and approved by the soviet leaders in order to control the perception of the people. Can you think of any news sources in the US that do that today? :D
The good news for the media, is that many have gotten burned both economically and ethically for the failures behind their collusion with administrations that seek to modify the narrative, and have begun to report news again with less political filtering, or outright fabrication.
There are comedic examples on both sides, and typically the instant gratification crowd and those with limited understanding of politics, economics, or government will turn to those sources for their news, not in an effort to be informed, but to gain fodder for shallow ridicule.
I like comedians, but rarely admire them for their political analysis, because their ultimate goal is to entertain, not inform. Laughter is typically devoid of thought, because by definition it requires the mind to be confused between narratives.
George Carlin once said in an interview (paraphrase because I cannot find the quote) 'Comedy is a trick of the mind, a joke is simply a story with two different endings. The audience assumes one ending, but the punch-line reveals the other hidden ending. The brain realizes it was tricked and the result is laughter.'
From a political standpoint, humor (ridicule) offers a powerful tool in shaping the minds of the least informed, distracted or the young. From Tina Fey's very effective portrayal (and ultimate definition) of Sarah Palin to as far back as 400bc when Aristophanes relentlessly ridiculed the Athenian statesman Cleon, comedians have been powerful weapons of political destruction.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 19, 2013, 05:33:36 AM
Think of Stewart like people thought of Will Rogers back in the 30's. He is a comedian and looks to both parties and all players for material. He simply gets better material from the conservatives, t-partiers and Republicans. But his best bet is to stay non aligned and use them all. Obama is by nature pretty good material.
Think of Fox MSNBC as modern day Pravda.
FIFY. ;)
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on September 19, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
FIFY. ;)
Actually that's not true, because Provda had a quite broad viewership. If MSNBC wants to achieve that success, the administration will need to restrict or otherwise regulate the other news offerings out of business. That can also be achieved, to some extent, by limiting access.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 19, 2013, 02:06:54 PM
Actually that's not true, because Provda had a quite broad viewership. If MSNBC wants to achieve that success, the administration will need to restrict or otherwise regulate the other news offerings out of business. That can also be achieved, to some extent, by limiting access.
Not hard to grow a market when you have the only 'show' in town.
If MSNBC could only find a way to eliminate the competition. . .
It's obvious that competition is bad for their product. :)
Putin has ben nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for preventing Obama from starting another war.
(http://momentsinmyhead.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/irony.jpeg)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/russias-vladimir-putin-nominated-nobel-peace-prize/
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 07:54:12 AM
Putin has ben nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for preventing Obama from starting another war.
You know it's easy to be nominated right?
Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 07:55:45 AM
You know it's easy to be nominated right?
You remember who you're asking that question to, right?
Quote from: Hoss on October 03, 2013, 08:16:05 AM
You remember who you're asking that question to, right?
I know. We can keep trying though.
Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 07:55:45 AM
You know it's easy to be nominated right?
And easy to
purchase er win one, apparently. Just ask President Obama or Algore.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
And easy to purchase er win one, apparently. Just ask President Obama or Algore.
Each prize comes with an underlying reason for it's award. President Obama's was awarded for:
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Perhaps they should have waited a bit. :D
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
And easy to purchase er win one, apparently. Just ask President Obama or Algore.
How do you win a Nobel Prize?http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/awards-organizations/win-nobel-prize.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/awards-organizations/win-nobel-prize.htm)
Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2013, 09:56:48 AM
How do you win a Nobel Prize?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/awards-organizations/win-nobel-prize.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/awards-organizations/win-nobel-prize.htm)
Yes, and with that Nobel peace prize in your hip pocket, you are then free to kill innocent civilians with drone strikes with complete impunity! Brilliant!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 10:22:53 AM
Yes, and with that Nobel peace prize in your hip pocket, you are then free to kill innocent civilians with drone strikes with complete impunity! Brilliant!
That must've been in a different article.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 10:22:53 AM
Yes, and with that Nobel peace prize in your hip pocket, you are then free to kill innocent civilians with drone strikes with complete impunity! Brilliant!
Shudup!
(http://arkanamusic.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/chris_crocker_leave_britney_alone.jpg)
He killed Osama.. . .and these kids:
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male
Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser | 9 | female
Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 7 | female
Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 5 | female
Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser | 4 | female
Ibrahim Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 13 | male
Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 9 | male
Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female
Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 3 | female
Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye | 1 | female
Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye | 6 | female
Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | male
Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye | 15 | female
Maryam Hussein Abdullah Awad | 2 | female
Shafiq Hussein Abdullah Awad | 1 | female
Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh | 3 | female
Maha Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 12 | male
Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 9 | female
Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 4 | female
Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 2 | male
Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari | 13 | male
Daolah Nasser 10 years | 10 | female
AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout | 12 | male
Abdel- Rahman Anwar al Awlaki | 16 | male
Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki | 17 | male
Nasser Salim | 19
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2013, 10:29:58 AM
He killed Osama.
And of course the world doesn't give a rat's backside about the other 21,000 kids that died that day.....
Oh, and today.
And yesterday.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 03, 2013, 06:05:16 PM
And of course the world doesn't give a rat's backside about the other 21,000 kids that died that day.....
Oh, and today.
And yesterday.
You're right. Kids die every day. Who cares if it's malaria, or a hellfire missile ordered by President Obama in his Tuesday Terror Meetings. It's all the same.
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/876/493/obama_sitroom.jpg?ve=1)
We're all going to die. Don't even know why murder is a crime? The outcome is inevitable.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 09:29:46 AM
You're right. Kids die every day. Who cares if it's malaria, or a hellfire missile ordered by President Obama in his Tuesday Terror Meetings. It's all the same.
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/876/493/obama_sitroom.jpg?ve=1)
We're all going to die. Don't even know why murder is a crime? The outcome is inevitable.
Think Scott needs a blanky or even a binky.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 04, 2013, 09:29:46 AM
You're right. Kids die every day. Who cares if it's malaria, or a hellfire missile ordered by President Obama in his Tuesday Terror Meetings. It's all the same.
We're all going to die. Don't even know why murder is a crime? The outcome is inevitable.
And again, as always, it goes to perspective - the RWRE is concentrating on 400 - very specifically using it as a political point making tool - while 21,000 a day are going through the same end result, while we ignore completely. Very disingenuous. Intellectually dishonest. Actually quite despicable. And of course, been doing it for decades. (And to be fair, both sides indulge from time to time...the RWRE is just more 'successful' at it - giving even more credence to that study we have talked about here showing lower intellectual capacity gravitates to the RWRE.)
But the 21,000 aren't in a place where specious non-event attacks can be made at the top of shrill, harpie voices, and get people who are weak minded enough to listen. Much like the whole Benghazi embassy thing... proper perspective - reality based stuff that didn't have ONLY a political agenda - would ask the same questions about 4 killed there, but then expand the topic to include the 31 killed in similar circumstances during the Bush administration. Plus the embassy people killed over previous decades, with either party in office. Where was the security when the 31 were killed? Why weren't the embassies fortified during that time?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2013, 10:22:53 AM
Yes, and with that Nobel peace prize in your hip pocket, you are then free to kill innocent civilians with drone strikes with complete impunity! Brilliant!
Like Bush killed 900,000 in Iraq in about 2 years during the search for Saddam Hussein....protecting the population there from a guy who had killed about 200,000 over 25 years.... Perspective. Again.
Shuttering the Syrian embassies...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-suspends-diplomatic-relations-syria
Better not criticize Obama's Syrian policy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/11/exclusive-obama-told-lawmakers-criticism-of-his-syria-policy-is-horsesh-t.html
Quote from: guido911 on August 12, 2014, 02:11:56 AM
Better not criticize Obama's Syrian policy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/11/exclusive-obama-told-lawmakers-criticism-of-his-syria-policy-is-horsesh-t.html
Too late. Hillary is already on it.
"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said
Quote from: Gaspar on August 12, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
Too late. Hillary is already on it.
"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said
I think this should also go in the "democrats divided" thread.
You are a desperate man.
I hope someday you find some glimmer of division within the democratic party. It will make your life's work meaningful.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 12, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
Too late. Hillary is already on it.
"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — that failure left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said
It's because of a profound lack of understanding of the middle-east in western society, and US in particular. She is no more enlightened - she just has the benefit of hind sight. Which is always perfect.
Nothing new - goes back over 1,000 years.