goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on August 26, 2013, 11:30:17 AM
-
Welp
-
This is a great topic, sonofdax. Can you make an argument for why the US should or should not?
-
i hope we do whatever turkey wants (unless it's genocide, again). they are the boss in those parts, or at least they should be.
-
This is a great topic, sonofdax. Can you make an argument for why the US should or should not?
do this, but not with an excessively bolded and highlighted article.
-
France is all extra vocal about this. Let them take this one by the horns and we can wait in reserve. :don'tcare:
-
I think if Assad did use the chemical weapons then bombs away is probably what will happen.
-
Here we go with another meaningless war
-
we have to use up our missiles before they hit the expiration date and get thrown out.
-
I like how American foreign policy is now essentially "we'll do whatever the international community decides..."
The great thing about Syria is there don't appear to be any good guys, so you don't have to be nearly as selective with your targets, amiright?
-
Hey, Syria. Remember how you used that one weapon to kill some of your own ppl? Well, I hope us killing some of your ppl will teach you a lesson.
-
I think we should send in ground teams and replace all of those mustard gas bombs with canisters filled with low grade explosives and French's yellow mustard. Really saw the head off of that Syrian snake, you know?
-
Have we tried asking them to stop fighting? You never know if it will work unless you ask.
-
Have we tried asking them to stop fighting? You never know if it will work unless you ask.
These Syrians are savages with no sense of right and wrong, and they mean business, CFoD. Diplomacy is just wasted breath. That said, maybe we could launch a propaganda campaign and just have the people vote 'em out?
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2013/08/23/pkg-pleitgen-syria-chemical-attack.cnn&hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2013/08/23/pkg-pleitgen-syria-chemical-attack.cnn&hpt=hp_t2)
CNN's vid of the attack.
Women and kids. Like rows of them.
-
I would never let my son/daughter join the US Military
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
Because chemical weapons are dangerous for the environment and cause global warming. Just killing people with bullets, drones, etc. actually helps Mother Earth by depopulation. Duh.
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
Because chemical weapons are dangerous for the environment and cause global warming. Just killing people with bullets, drones, etc. actually helps Mother Earth by depopulation. Duh.
Won't argue with that part.
-
I would never let my son/daughter join the US Military
don't have kids.
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
indiscriminate and invisible kinda violates the rules of war. no one would tolerate a country killing it's civilians from the air either.
hitler and churchill both suffered gas attacks during WWI and hated the stuff. if hitler won't use it in conventional war, there is something different about it.
-
I would never let my son/daughter join the US Military
don't have kids.
Don't plan on it, but mistakes happen :ohno:
-
I would never let my son/daughter join the US Military
don't have kids.
Don't plan on it, but mistakes happen :ohno:
i meant that in a malthusian manner. have as many children as you like up to two.
-
Wrong war, wrong time.
The complicit shall be prosecuted for their crimes.
Illegal war
Etc. Etc.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2Fwere-gonna-free-the-crap-out-of-you.jpg&hash=40a5ffb96a730df82eb77e9ad4316f960ae372df)
-
It's almost like they knew chemical weapons would force is to play our hand.
-
It's almost like they knew chemical weapons would force is to play our hand.
Uh, obviously you don't know about the bilderbergs.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
-
Sure hope Obama doesn't "take his eye off the ball in Afghanistan" by engaging Syria.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
We seem to have forgotten about the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
We seem to have forgotten about the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq.
i'm not sure how that's relevant to the invasion of iraq.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
We seem to have forgotten about the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq.
i'm not sure how that's relevant to the invasion of iraq.
I think Iraq is in our near Iraq.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
We seem to have forgotten about the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq.
i'm not sure how that's relevant to the invasion of iraq.
Then you're a dumbass.
-
depending on who you ask, you can get many different answers explaining why the u.s. invaded iraq in 2003. none of them will be "because saddam gassed the kurds in 1988" or "saddam is going to gas his own people"
-
GWB went into Iraq because his daddy told him he needed to
-
Okay strawman.
-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/syria_intervention_cost_military_strikes_are_a_highly_cost_ineffective_way.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/military_interventions_increase_civilian_deaths.html
-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/syria_intervention_cost_military_strikes_are_a_highly_cost_ineffective_way.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/military_interventions_increase_civilian_deaths.html
i would like to at least make a huge ass attempt to feed every hungry person in that country and give them some medical care. after that we could sit them down at the table jimmy carter style and see what happens. why would they not agree to meeting? we will kill the government if they don't and the rebels are getting gassed. if, after that, we have to bomb them, oh well at least we tried something new.
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default
-
It's almost like they knew chemical weapons would force is to play our hand.
Its not like we announced that months ago anyway.
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
indiscriminate and invisible kinda violates the rules of war. no one would tolerate a country killing it's civilians from the air either.
hitler and churchill both suffered gas attacks during WWI and hated the stuff. if hitler won't use it in conventional war, there is something different about it.
Fear of retaliation, nothing else. Hitler had no issues gassing millions of Jews.
-
Removing Assad at this point would leave either an opening for a permanent residency by the US or an open door for the Al Nusra Front to take over. Al Nusra, the Syrian branch of al queda was actually caught with sarin gas and appeared to be planning an attack with it. So I'm not even convinced it was Assad who did this.
It's really too late at this point as we've been funding the SFA for so long, much of those resources defected to Al Nusra with their "beheading of anyone against them" policy. So they've grown massive enough, they could likely take over even without our help. We already have a crap load of blood on our hands, so what's one more bankrupting permanent occupation to help support the military industrial complex, right?
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
I think the point should be made that Syria is home to Christians, Muslims, Shiites, and many others. They all pretty much got along under their dictator too until Muslim brotherhood and other extremist starting receiving funding from the US/china/Russia/UN etc.
-
Will there be massive anti war protests for Barry's War?
no. there are substantial differences between the current situation and the invasion of iraq. also, liberals won't call obama on his crap and conservatives aren't about to shed tears over more dead muslims.
I think the point should be made that Syria is home to Christians, Muslims, Shiites, and many others. They all pretty much got along under their dictator too until Muslim brotherhood and other extremist starting receiving funding from the US/china/Russia/UN etc.
It's "mooslims".
-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/syria_intervention_cost_military_strikes_are_a_highly_cost_ineffective_way.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/military_interventions_increase_civilian_deaths.html
i would like to at least make a huge ass attempt to feed every hungry person in that country and give them some medical care. after that we could sit them down at the table jimmy carter style and see what happens. why would they not agree to meeting? we will kill the government if they don't and the rebels are getting gassed. if, after that, we have to bomb them, oh well at least we tried something new.
I'd be down for that. It's definitely perferable to bombing the crap out of the place.
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
indiscriminate and invisible kinda violates the rules of war. no one would tolerate a country killing it's civilians from the air either.
hitler and churchill both suffered gas attacks during WWI and hated the stuff. if hitler won't use it in conventional war, there is something different about it.
Fear of retaliation, nothing else. Hitler had no issues gassing millions of Jews.
mostly fear of retaliation, but i also think people are more likely to use unconventional weapons against people they don't consider equals. some people wonder if we would have used atomic weapons against the nazis on account of their whiteness.
-
Just killing people with bullets, drones, etc. actually helps Mother Earth by depopulation. Duh.
Won't argue with that part.
killing males has almost no impact on population growth, unfortunately.
-
Contrary to the above, its clear that ethnic cleansing is the only way to resolve this pickle in Syria.
-
Contrary to the above, its clear that ethnic cleansing is the only way to resolve this pickle in Syria.
like i was saying, put turkey in charge of this mess.
-
Contrary to the above, its clear that ethnic cleansing is the only way to resolve this pickle in Syria.
some of them are hot tho
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpodblanc.mobi%2Fuploads%2Fthumbs%2F5wmknfxdfc4pw4pu.jpg&hash=a54c1ee474869dbfff1136769197e42401907499)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcfoujKaWm4
-
Time for us all to brush up on our syrian jihadi groups: http://www.karlremarks.com/2012/12/the-secular-idiots-guide-to-syrias.html?m=1
-
Time for us all to brush up on our syrian jihadi groups: http://www.karlremarks.com/2012/12/the-secular-idiots-guide-to-syrias.html?m=1
well that was fun.
-
Never really understood why we draw the line at chemical weapons. Like yeah, go ahead and shoot some in the head, but don't even consider mustard gas... Wut?
indiscriminate and invisible kinda violates the rules of war. no one would tolerate a country killing it's civilians from the air either.
hitler and churchill both suffered gas attacks during WWI and hated the stuff. if hitler won't use it in conventional war, there is something different about it.
Fear of retaliation, nothing else. Hitler had no issues gassing millions of Jews.
Careful, you're going to give Morton a boner.
-
Time for us all to brush up on our syrian jihadi groups: http://www.karlremarks.com/2012/12/the-secular-idiots-guide-to-syrias.html?m=1
well that was fun.
I love that guy.
Many Jihadi groups are influenced by post-structuralist theory.
as we have already established semantic consistency isn’t the Jihadists’ strong point.
-
Looks like Saddam's chemical warheads are still effective.
-
Looks like Saddam's chemical warheads are still effective.
Yeah, we gave those to him like 30 years ago, I'm curious what kind of shelf life those things have. Regardless, we sure got our money's worth out of them.
-
So, what's the official gowemaw stance on bombing Syria? I need to issue a press statement.
-
So, what's the official gowemaw stance on bombing Syria? I need to issue a press statement.
Let's get glassy
-
So, what's the official gowemaw stance on bombing Syria? I need to issue a press statement.
no military action until dax's timeline has passed, then we'll consider it if necessary. but no half-assing if we do decide to bomb them. SHOCK AND AWE.
-
I like how American foreign policy is now essentially "we'll do whatever the international community decides..."
The great thing about Syria is there don't appear to be any good guys, so you don't have to be nearly as selective with your targets, amiright?
I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but I like the fact that we've learned from our past mistakes. The new, international approach to foreign policy will save us billions of dollars over the long run, and it sets a precedent moving forward that America won't be solely responsible for policing the Middle East (and other areas of the world for that matter).
-
Hey folks. It doesn't matter that we're supporting factions with hardcore Islamic Fundamentalist leanings, it matters that when we're dropping bombs and firing cruise missile while engaged in regime change that we're saving money.
:thumbs:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403697/Syria-crisis-strike-Syria-U-S-Al-Qaeda-time-history.html
http://world.time.com/2013/08/28/as-syria-attack-seems-imminent-al-qaeda-and-the-u-s-eye-the-same-enemy/
-
I like how American foreign policy is now essentially "we'll do whatever the international community decides..."
The great thing about Syria is there don't appear to be any good guys, so you don't have to be nearly as selective with your targets, amiright?
I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but I like the fact that we've learned from our past mistakes. The new, international approach to foreign policy will save us billions of dollars over the long run, and it sets a precedent moving forward that America won't be solely responsible for policing the Middle East (and other areas of the world for that matter).
International Foreign Policy? Is that like Drone Foreign policy?
Bradly Manning Leaked Video (http://youtu.be/is9sxRfU-ik)
(https://sphotos-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1236174_10151512469941642_1146980825_n.jpg)
-
:thumbs:
-
Hey look, guys... it's the hyper-partisan, recently-turned pacifist, anti-Obama temper tantrum crew.
-
Nothing worse than an Obamabot selling perpetual war done more economically.
Sad.
Obamabots: War is good . . . unless we say it isn't.
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
-
I don't see any outcome where whatever is left of syria doesn't hate us.
-
So, I think we're at 4 votes "for bombing", 4 votes for "not bombing" and 4 votes for "bombing if Obama decides not to but not bombing if Obama decides to" .
Some days I really hate my job as the Director of PR and Media Relations for goEMAW.com. I'll put us down for a "no comment".
-
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html
I don't know about the first time . . . but hey.
-
Nothing worse than an Obamabot selling perpetual war done more economically.
Sad.
Obamabots: War is good . . . unless we say it isn't.
I'm against going to war with Syria, Captain Pacifist.
-
Um-hmm
-
And besides, the Obama administration has already ruled out any action that would lead to a regime change:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827)
(Reuters) - The White House ruled out any military effort to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power on Tuesday as President Barack Obama ponders options in response to last week's chemical weapons attack in Syria.
"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."
But hey, when you're perpetually butthurt about the fact that a black, moderate Democrat is President, you tend to gloss over pesky little things like "facts."
-
And the race variation of Godwin's law now enters the equation, some things never change from the Chief Perpetually Butthurt Obamabot in residence.
Thing is, the U.S. has been engaged in regime change in Syria since the very moment this so called "civil war" began.
-
And the race variation of Godwin's law now enters the equation, some things never change from the Chief Perpetually Butthurt Obamabot in residence.
Thing is, the U.S. has been engaged in regime change in Syria since the very moment this so called "civil war" began.
Nope
-
So, I think we're at 4 votes "for bombing", 4 votes for "not bombing" and 4 votes for "bombing if Obama decides not to but not bombing if Obama decides to" .
Some days I really hate my job as the Director of PR and Media Relations for goEMAW.com. I'll put us down for a "no comment".
I vote not bombing. Or did you already count me when I suggested we get the locals to just vote 'em out?
-
And besides, the Obama administration has already ruled out any action that would lead to a regime change:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827)
(Reuters) - The White House ruled out any military effort to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power on Tuesday as President Barack Obama ponders options in response to last week's chemical weapons attack in Syria.
"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."
But hey, when you're perpetually butthurt about the fact that a black, moderate Democrat is President, you tend to gloss over pesky little things like "facts."
You're such a good person Ben; supporting such a wonderful peace loving president.
Not like that war mongering bad person bush. Check out this link outlining the difference between bush and Obama's bombings.
http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
-
Link to Obama starting a war with Iraq?
-
"Other" is defined as any male old enough to hold a gun, and therefore, "could" be an enemy combatant. But then again, it could just be some overweight dude standing next to a guy with an AK or a van full of people frantically pulling an innocent friends bloody corpse into their car so they can rush someone out of the danger zone/residential area. Or it could be that guys 14 year old son... Who knows, just throw them in that "other" category, because it wasn't a woman, or a child, or he wasn't holding a gun... So who knows... Right? Guess that's what they get for living in a war zone.
-
What US Senators are for bombing? Like has anyone actually come out and said we should?
-
Link to Obama starting a war with Iraq?
Yeah, thats not going to work - Bush really was a war mongering bad person; not to mention, the link was Pakistan ALONE; not the combined 6 countries bombed by Bush and Obama. I could show you a link to where Obama bombed Libya and Yemen... Should be able to find a link for Syria here within the month.
-
What US Senators are for bombing? Like has anyone actually come out and said we should?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/bipartisanship-house-dem-gop-senator-agree-u.s.-should-bomb-syria/article/2534691?custom_click=rss (http://washingtonexaminer.com/bipartisanship-house-dem-gop-senator-agree-u.s.-should-bomb-syria/article/2534691?custom_click=rss)
-
What US Senators are for bombing? Like has anyone actually come out and said we should?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/bipartisanship-house-dem-gop-senator-agree-u.s.-should-bomb-syria/article/2534691?custom_click=rss (http://washingtonexaminer.com/bipartisanship-house-dem-gop-senator-agree-u.s.-should-bomb-syria/article/2534691?custom_click=rss)
you know those assholes on the foreign relations committee get huge contributions from defense contractors
edit:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00001003&type=I&newmem=N (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00001003&type=I&newmem=N)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=n00027441&type=I&newmem=N (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=n00027441&type=I&newmem=N)
engel's top donor is lockheed martin. it's surprising how small his donations are compared to corker's.
-
So, I think we're at 4 votes "for bombing", 4 votes for "not bombing" and 4 votes for "bombing if Obama decides not to but not bombing if Obama decides to" .
Some days I really hate my job as the Director of PR and Media Relations for goEMAW.com. I'll put us down for a "no comment".
I vote not bombing. Or did you already count me when I suggested we get the locals to just vote 'em out?
Son of a.....
This is frustrating. I just spent the last 30 minutes writing up our "no comment" press release.
-
Obama is such a badass he is going to bomb the eff out of yet another country. He just does not take a single iota of crap from anyone without dropping ordinance all over them.
He needs to scoop up some of Assad's guys and drop them in GITMO. The hunger strikes are opening up some cells.
-
http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
Cliffs notes for anyone not wanting to click on the link, 3,149 estimated drone kills in just Pakistan:
1.5% Success rate of "High Profile" targets.
5.6% Children
17% Civilians
75.9% Other
So there you go. "The new, international approach to foreign policy" that "will save us billions of dollars over the long run" had a whopping 1.5% success rate. While simultaneously acknowledging 5.6% of collateral damage being children as completely acceptable.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
I'm not sure anybody here is arguing with you.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Access to weapons and the fact that they go home every night?
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
They do.
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
-
FR, use your super CIA'ey contacts to get someone in Syria to post here and start a (new member name here) moves to Syria.
-
Maybe I can get the guys who crashed the times and hacked the onion? May need to run this past Saul.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
I'm not sure anybody here is arguing with you.
Ben seems to be anxious to defend Obama as the Peace minister himself and certainly is not involved in the war racket that's dominated foreign policy over the last 100 years.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?
-
Way more than 100, friend.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
I'm not sure anybody here is arguing with you.
Ben seems to be anxious to defend Obama as the Peace minister himself and certainly is not involved in the war racket that's dominated foreign policy over the last 100 years.
I've never defended Obama as a "peace minister." I just don't get all butthurt about drones because I view them as a better alternative than putting American troops in harm's way. Take your anti-Obama psycho ramblings somewhere else, dipshit.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?
I thought the drones are killing kids? So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids? This is getting to be pretty informative.
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?
-
Also, I'd like to compare drone strikes to regular strikes and how many kids die.
-
75% is a whole lot of "Other"
Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?
I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%? Seems important to any drone discussion.
:dunno:
Also, I am pro drone.
Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war. I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing. However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point. They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors. Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.
Why would we get involved in this?
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?
I thought the drones are killing kids? So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids? This is getting to be pretty informative.
No, they're part of the giant lie.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
I'm not sure anybody here is arguing with you.
Ben seems to be anxious to defend Obama as the Peace minister himself and certainly is not involved in the war racket that's dominated foreign policy over the last 100 years.
I've never defended Obama as a "peace minister." I just don't get all butthurt about drones because I view them as a better alternative than putting American troops in harm's way. Take your anti-Obama psycho ramblings somewhere else, dipshit.
Watch the leaked video and tell me that type of policy doesn't create more terrorist than it stops. And understand I don't want boots on the ground either. I want "stop financially supporting extremist in foreign countries and then coming to the rescue of no ones call when those extremist go rough ridin' bat nuts crazy"
Why isn't get the eff out of everyone's business a logical option as opposed to murdering innocent people?
-
75% is a whole lot of "Other"
Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?
I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%? Seems important to any drone discussion.
:dunno:
Also, I am pro drone.
Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war. I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing. However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point. They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors. Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.
Why would we get involved in this?
1: "Other" is any male victim old enough to hold a gun. "Might" be a terrorist - "might" be a 14 year old kid sitting on his front porch.
2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate? You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?
3: we're the ones supporting al Qaeda. We give money to the SFA, they defect to Muslim extremist al Nusra. This is all the fault of the US, UN, etc. etc.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?
I thought the drones are killing kids? So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids? This is getting to be pretty informative.
Those drones have pilots. Frequently in places like Nevada. Some of them contribute to the suicide start. There was a pretty interesting article about it linked on this board about a year ago
-
2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate? You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?
Couldn't a significant chunk of the other be medium-profile targets (i.e. enemy combatants or something of the like)?
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?
I thought the drones are killing kids? So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids? This is getting to be pretty informative.
Those drones have pilots. Frequently in places like Nevada. Some of them contribute to the suicide start. There was a pretty interesting article about it linked on this board about a year ago
So they pull the trigger then travel to afghanistan to evac shredded kids? Sounds expensive. I am against this.
-
That doesn't even include the active duty soldiers that commit suicide every 25 hours; probably from all the nightmares of having to evac bloody baby remnants & stumps.
But hell yeah! What's another war?!?
Goodness, this is a pretty impressive new talking point. Why don't ambulance drivers kill themselves all the time?
Are ambulance drivers part of some giant lie around love of country thats directly responsible for killing kids?
I thought the drones are killing kids? So that one soldier every 25 hours is directly responsible for killing little kids? This is getting to be pretty informative.
Those drones have pilots. Frequently in places like Nevada. Some of them contribute to the suicide start. There was a pretty interesting article about it linked on this board about a year ago
So they pull the trigger then travel to afghanistan to evac shredded kids? Sounds expensive. I am against this.
Yes, v. inefficient
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?
No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?
No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.
Don't they already?
-
75% is a whole lot of "Other"
Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?
I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%? Seems important to any drone discussion.
:dunno:
Also, I am pro drone.
Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war. I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing. However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point. They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors. Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.
Why would we get involved in this?
1: "Other" is any male victim old enough to hold a gun. "Might" be a terrorist - "might" be a 14 year old kid sitting on his front porch.
2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate? You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?
3: we're the ones supporting al Qaeda. We give money to the SFA, they defect to Muslim extremist al Nusra. This is all the fault of the US, UN, etc. etc.
As for #2, I support drones because if you are going to war, limit your exposure. War sucks and is messy and unfortunately has to be, imo.
#3: I know we are supporting AQ. What I am saying is that let them have Syria or let the other ppl have Syria, or whogivesafuck who gets Syria. They haven't been #TeamUSA and those with their hands in the air wanting to claim Syria won't be #TeamUSA. None of these ppl have or will want to be part of the economy we work within. So why get involved.
-
2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate? You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?
Couldn't a significant chunk of the other be medium-profile targets (i.e. enemy combatants or something of the like)?
No; the 1.5% were people actually holding guns or engaging us - that is what made them a target. What kind of a medium threat goes walking around a war zone without a weapon? The 75 percent were the guys standing next to a guy with an AK or were walking past/into a building that had a guy with a weapon walk into or were trying to remove/help the victim a strike.
-
Yeah, but it's war. I mean, imagine the individual atrocities we would know about if twitter, etc existed during WWI, WWII, or Vietnam.
Part of war is breaking your opponent and being surgically clean and super nice about everyone other than the boss of the enemy isn't an effective way to do that.
Truman busted up Japan with the worst weapon ever used and he is considered a winner. :dunno:
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?
No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.
Don't they already?
No. Not really. Unless you consider Israel a US interest.
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?
No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.
Don't they already?
No. Not really. Unless you consider Israel a US interest.
I mean, this is the reason for it all, right?
-
75% is a whole lot of "Other"
Is that like rocks, empty buildings, dogs, and stuff?
I mean, yeah, the 5% kids is bad, but does grandparents, tweens, and middleaged innocent bystanders make up the 75%? Seems important to any drone discussion.
:dunno:
Also, I am pro drone.
Also, Also, I don't necessarily see any outcome as a big deal if we don't go to war. I mean, I am against innocent ppl dying, but that happens in huge numbers in other places that we aren't debating bombing. However, this is a country that we have suspected of aiding those we consider enemies for some time now and it's not like we interact with them on a business level at this point. They only two talking points I can think of off the top of my head(aside from kids hating mustard gas) for going to war is that we don't want Al Queda to have a new PowerPlay/MonkeyBusiness/PlayZone area and/or Isreal needs more fake puppet govts with "democracy" as neighbors. Both of which are stupid reasons to go to war, imo.
Why would we get involved in this?
1: "Other" is any male victim old enough to hold a gun. "Might" be a terrorist - "might" be a 14 year old kid sitting on his front porch.
2: And how can anyone support something that only has a 1.5% success rate? You're okay with over 98% collateral damage?
3: we're the ones supporting al Qaeda. We give money to the SFA, they defect to Muslim extremist al Nusra. This is all the fault of the US, UN, etc. etc.
As for #2, I support drones because if you are going to war, limit your exposure. War sucks and is messy and unfortunately has to be, imo.
#3: I know we are supporting AQ. What I am saying is that let them have Syria or let the other ppl have Syria, or whogivesafuck who gets Syria. They haven't been #TeamUSA and those with their hands in the air wanting to claim Syria won't be #TeamUSA. None of these ppl have or will want to be part of the economy we work within. So why get involved.
No one is team USA but us. We're Paris Hilton. The only friends we have are the ones on the payroll. There's some dumb asses that think we're hawt, but they're just star struck.
-
Pfft. We are hot as eff and others are jealous.
-
I don't want to go to war at all. I don't think it will end well.
I'm specifically concerned about Hezbollah in this scenario.
So you're concerned that doing nothing would lead to Hezbollah gaining power? OK, then what happens?
No. The opposite. A strike will provoke Hezbollah to target US interests.
Don't they already?
No. Not really. Unless you consider Israel a US interest.
I think most of us do.
-
I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.
-
Didn't Isreal come out this morning and basically say that they wanted to warn any dumbass that they shouldn't attack Isreal just because the US attacks you all willy nilly?
I mean, I read it quickly, but it basically sounded like Isreal thinks what we are threatening to do is a dumb misguided move and that they want all the non Israeli ppl to know that they aren't part of this.
-
I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.
Shun? Cold shoulder? Please explain further.
-
Yeah, but it's war. I mean, imagine the individual atrocities we would know about if twitter, etc existed during WWI, WWII, or Vietnam.
Exactly. Which is why war is bad. And we should avoid it at all cost. But we're not; we're financially backing our enemies indirectly. We're creating more enemies by the minute. And we're lying to the American people so we'll be all patriotic and crap about killing people in other countries.
-
I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.
Shun? Cold shoulder? Please explain further.
We have some overlapping objectives. But we act in our interests, not Israel's. Favors happen, but states are not altruistic.
-
Didn't Isreal come out this morning and basically say that they wanted to warn any dumbass that they shouldn't attack Isreal just because the US attacks you all willy nilly?
I mean, I read it quickly, but it basically sounded like Isreal thinks what we are threatening to do is a dumb misguided move and that they want all the non Israeli ppl to know that they aren't part of this.
They already have 100,000+ fewer enemies and I imagine they would like to see it continue. Any US strikes would probably slow the process and shift the attention their way.
-
I understand Barry is the Prez but we probably shouldn't bomb anybody
-
I understand Barry is the Prez but we probably shouldn't bomb anybody
too bad this is a democracy and your opinion doesn't matter.
-
I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.
Shun? Cold shoulder? Please explain further.
We have some overlapping objectives. But we act in our interests, not Israel's. Favors happen, but states are not altruistic.
Right, thanks. I wasn't sure if you were suggesting our interests should be running contrary to theirs. It seems from the outside at least that they often align.
-
I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.
We will intervene to protect Israel if they are threatened with anihilation, which makes it seem to be a US interest.
-
I understand Barry is the Prez but we probably shouldn't bomb anybody
too bad this is a democracy and your opinion doesn't matter.
I don't live in a democracy. I live in a republic.
-
I understand Barry is the Prez but we probably shouldn't bomb anybody
too bad this is a democracy and your opinion doesn't matter.
I don't live in a democracy. I live in a republic.
A republic is a type of democracy... :dubious:
-
I understand Barry is the Prez but we probably shouldn't bomb anybody
too bad this is a democracy and your opinion doesn't matter.
I don't live in a democracy. I live in a republic.
A republic is a type of democracy... :dubious:
we don't live in either
-
I would stop doing that. That's just my advice, though.
We will intervene to protect Israel if they are threatened with anihilation, which makes it seem to be a US interest.
This is (eventually) true with most places. I'm just saying that Hezbollah would be likely to actively target Americans and American facilities again. I think it's a consequence that's being considered, that's all.
-
War is perfectly fine as long as we're killing innocent people with robots from 40,000 feet and not with M-16's from 150 yards . . . resident Obamabot War Monger.
-
Good job pointing out how they sound like mindless robots, Dax.
-
Keeping running with that "Concerned about Hezbollah" Captain Obvious talking point of the day FR.
-
On it, Dax.
-
Good job pointing out how they sound like mindless robots, Dax.
lol
-
So Lazlo from Church of Lazlo is channeling his inner Patton Oswalt right now on twitter regarding Syria and chemical weapons. Saying things like chemical weapons don't kill people, people kill people; that chemical weapons should not be banned, and; that if everyone in Syria had chemical weapons everyone would be safe. It is pretty great, especially if you read his mentions because there are some people who don't get sarcasm or what he is doing.
-
So Lazlo from Church of Lazlo is channeling his inner Patton Oswalt right now on twitter regarding Syria and chemical weapons. Saying things like chemical weapons don't kill people, people kill people; that chemical weapons should not be banned, and; that if everyone in Syria had chemical weapons everyone would be safe. It is pretty great, especially if you read his mentions because there are some people who don't get sarcasm or what he is doing.
:thumbs:
-
The resident ObamaWarMongers and their faux concern over whether we strike Syria would've loved what I saw this morning. The F-15E Strike Eagles from a nearyby AFB were down on the deck on a route which lets them (via electronics) practice bomb targets like some they might have to hit in places like Syria or Iran. Economic kill factors are unknown at this time.
Just say no to War . . . Unless a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.
-
The resident ObamaWarMongers and their faux concern over whether we strike Syria would've loved what I saw this morning. The F-15E Strike Eagles from a nearyby AFB were down on the deck on a route which lets them (via electronics) practice bomb targets like some they might have to hit in places like Syria or Iran. Economic kill factors are unknown at this time.
Just say no to War . . . Unless a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.
if we are out whipping ass on the international stage it better not be with a 25 year old plane. i want f-22s out there napalming those who dare stand against america.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1q2ORP1.jpg&hash=e7bfb488f0cbc20bf9cd5da37ef6aadc01906119)
get'em america!
-
Is Barry still Hope and Changy when starts bombing the crap out of a third world country?
-
John Kerry wants a war so bad he can't stand it. Has to be very disappointing for him given all the backlash.
-
So even after President Obama announced that he'll seek Congressional approval before authorizing strikes on Syria, you guys are still pissed? Seems to me like maybe you're just a bunch of hyper-partisan, anti-Obama, moderate/liberal-hating hacks.
-
Don't take any of their crap Barack
-
Again, John Kerry looks like a whipped puppy he's jonesing for an attack on Syria hard.
-
Barry is seeking congressional approval because he knows he's got no coalition of the willing behind him, and the security council is veto city.
-
President Obama and his top aides began a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a skeptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria, but faced a struggle to win over lawmakers from both parties and a war-weary American public.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408663/Syria-Obama-aides-spend-desperate-Sunday-night-trying-persuade-Congress-strike.html#ixzz2dlVTaFIE
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
if the people's representatives say no I have no doubt Barry will exercise his powers as King to go ahead and bomb the crap out of those poor people anyway
-
John Kerry in happier times with the latest Hitler of our time.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2013%2F09%2F02%2Farticle-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-279_634x575.jpg&hash=d487b89ef04c37d5749904405627a6330277753f)
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
if the people's representatives say no I have no doubt Barry will exercise his powers as King to go ahead and bomb the crap out of those poor people anyway
Yeah, except opposite, racist anti-Obama boy.
-
Oh look... the guy who voted for George W. Bush twice is trying to portray our current Secretary of State as some kind of unethical war monger. How cute.
-
Wrong and what difference does that make.
Why does the fact that this administration is desperate for a war make you such an Obamabot pissboy Beems?
-
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/01/201002/obamas-proposal-seeks-broad-war.html#.UiT47D_pySo
-
Wrong and what difference does that make.
Why does the fact that this administration is desperate for a war make you such an Obamabot pissboy Beems?
How in the hell can you say that this administration is "desperate for a war?" This administration has presided over the conclusion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and has done everything in its power to prevent significant military intervention in the Middle East. Israel and the majority of neo-cons have been begging for a war with Iran, and this administration has done nothing to satisfy their desires. You are nothing more than an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-moderate/liberal hack. You look for any excuse in the book to trash the current administration. Quit trying to deny it.
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
if the people's representatives say no I have no doubt Barry will exercise his powers as King to go ahead and bomb the crap out of those poor people anyway
Yeah, except opposite, racist anti-Obama boy.
Race card = tap out. Nice try I'll see ya in another thread.
-
Wrong and what difference does that make.
Why does the fact that this administration is desperate for a war make you such an Obamabot pissboy Beems?
How in the hell can you say that this administration is "desperate for a war?" This administration has presided over the conclusion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and has done everything in its power to prevent significant military intervention in the Middle East. Israel and the majority of neo-cons have been begging for a war with Iran, and this administration has done nothing to satisfy their desires. You are nothing more than an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-moderate/liberal hack. You look for any excuse in the book to trash the current administration. Quit trying to deny it.
This administration has been provoking Iran almost from the very beginning with a massive build-up of Naval Forces in the region, expansive naval excercises off the coast of Iran and putting their tell-tale signs easily traced back to the U.S. of all matter of espionage, survalliance, hacking etc. etc. of Iranian military and systems.
Obama signed an executive order 2 years ago authorizing the CIA to assist (and they'd already started) to overthrow the Assad regime . . . Why? We're fighting for Al Queda now you dumbass.
It's just killing you that nothing has actually changed, nothing.
The dumbass has absolutely nothing to the race card . . . meanwhile we've got a new "Hitler of our time" and Obama and aides are lobbying congress for war.
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
if the people's representatives say no I have no doubt Barry will exercise his powers as King to go ahead and bomb the crap out of those poor people anyway
Yeah, except opposite, racist anti-Obama boy.
Race card = tap out. Nice try I'll see ya in another thread.
I'm not using the race card. I'm simply describing what you are. You're a racist, anti-Obama, anti-liberal piece of crap. The fact that you refer to the President of the United States as "Barry" and write him off like he's some type of sub-human fool who doesn't deserve the same amenities as every other President is why I've reached this conclusion. If you think Obama is going to go to all of this trouble to seek Congressional approval (after carefully debating the decision for several months), only to override the majority decision of Congress, you're an even bigger dumbfuck than what I initially thought.
-
With no other mandate, if Obama were to attack (well he's been attacking Syria via proxies and the CIA for over 2 years now, including using AQ aligned entities) on his own he'd be impeached.
No Security Council resolution, no Arab League, No Britain, no coalition, yet he still lobbies Congress for war.
-
Wrong and what difference does that make.
Why does the fact that this administration is desperate for a war make you such an Obamabot pissboy Beems?
How in the hell can you say that this administration is "desperate for a war?" This administration has presided over the conclusion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and has done everything in its power to prevent significant military intervention in the Middle East. Israel and the majority of neo-cons have been begging for a war with Iran, and this administration has done nothing to satisfy their desires. You are nothing more than an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-moderate/liberal hack. You look for any excuse in the book to trash the current administration. Quit trying to deny it.
This administration has been provoking Iran almost from the very beginning with a massive build-up of Naval Forces in the region, expansive naval excercises off the coast of Iran and putting their tell-tale signs easily traced back to the U.S. of all matter of espionage, survalliance, hacking etc. etc. of Iranian military and systems.
Obama signed an executive order 2 years ago authorizing the CIA to assist (and they'd already started) to overthrow the Assad regime . . . Why? We're fighting for Al Queda now you dumbass.
It's just killing you that nothing has actually changed, nothing.
The dumbass has absolutely nothing to the race card . . . meanwhile we've got a new "Hitler of our time" and Obama and aides are lobbying congress for war.
My God... I don't even know where to start. Everything is a conspiracy theory with you. Maybe, just maybe, the United States is increasing its naval base in the Middle East region because that's the most unstable and volatile region in the world. Maybe the #1 concern of this administration and the United States is the instability between Pakistan and India (who both have nukes, by the way).
And no, we're not fighting for al Qaeda. That's exactly why Obama has avoided overthrowing the Assad regime, and it's exactly why Congress will likely deny any military air strikes in the region. The CIA was trying to remove the Assad regime before this entire conflict escalated to this point, dumbass. Now they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
It isn't killing me that "nothing has changed," because things have changed. Like I've noted, the war in Iraq has concluded. The war in Afghanistan is winding down and is set to conclude by 2014. The current military strategy is a hands off, keep the troops off the ground, coalition-based approach that is currently driving the anti-Obama, crisis-hungry folks like yourself crazy.
-
Pakistan and India is just laughable, come on, the entire focus is Iran.
There are no nonsecular entities fighting to overthrow Assad, and that pretty much as been the case since the very beginning, the DNC talking points don't take away from what non U.S. media has been saying all along, the "rebels" are Islamic fundamentalists financed and supported by U.S. proxies who will support their kind of Islamic fundamentalists when ever possible.
The war in Iraq has not concluded, State has one of the largest if not the largest merc army in the world in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan isn't really winding down, it's just off the front page of the websites, and the U.S. has said they'll still be a significant U.S. presence in Afghanistan well past 2014. Regular U.S. military forces are back in Iraq to assist with border security with Syria.
But Iraq and Afghanistan has little to do with the current administration lobbying Congress for war in Syria.
Just because it doesn't fit your idyllic viewpoint of the current administration and the spoon fed talking points of MSNBC/DNC/Hard Left Blogosphere doesn't make it a conspiracy.
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
if the people's representatives say no I have no doubt Barry will exercise his powers as King to go ahead and bomb the crap out of those poor people anyway
Yeah, except opposite, racist anti-Obama boy.
Race card = tap out. Nice try I'll see ya in another thread.
I'm not using the race card. I'm simply describing what you are. You're a racist, anti-Obama, anti-liberal piece of crap. The fact that you refer to the President of the United States as "Barry" and write him off like he's some type of sub-human fool who doesn't deserve the same amenities as every other President is why I've reached this conclusion. If you think Obama is going to go to all of this trouble to seek Congressional approval (after carefully debating the decision for several months), only to override the majority decision of Congress, you're an even bigger dumbfuck than what I initially thought.
I said see you in another thread, man.
-
beems is kinda right, i've noticed that racists LOVE to call him barry.
-
Like I've said, when you've got nothing left, toss the racist card.
Seems the resident Obamabots have forgotten (per usual) that the current VP, the current SOS, and the previous SOS were all significant Democratic supporters of the Iraq War.
Assad is just the latest "Hitler of our time".
-
According to these two Harvard Legal Experts the White House has requested broad power to make war including boots on the ground and expanding the war against any entity they see fit.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-administrations-proposed-syria-aumf-is-very-broad/
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
Yeah. It's funny how operating in the way your office is supposed to operate creates these win-win situations. Obama should try that more often.
-
It's a win-win for Obama. If congress says no, he can just say "welp, I tried but the people's representatives said no", and if they say yes, they can share the blame when things go terribly wrong and it escalates into a full blown war.
Yeah. It's funny how operating in the way your office is supposed to operate creates these win-win situations. Obama should try that more often.
Yeah it's almost like the system works pretty well when it used as intended
-
If they say no, I'm not sure Obama has it in him to take the decision of congress and respect it. I think he'll lob bombs no matter what. :Rusty:
-
If they say no, I'm not sure Obama has it in him to take the decision of congress and respect it. I think he'll lob bombs no matter what. :Rusty:
Well, it wouldn't be a win-win anymore under that scenario.
-
If they say no, I'm not sure Obama has it in him to take the decision of congress and respect it. I think he'll lob bombs no matter what. :Rusty:
Well, it wouldn't be a win-win anymore under that scenario.
Yeah, the win-win was if he went along with whatever congress decided.
-
If they say no, I'm not sure Obama has it in him to take the decision of congress and respect it. I think he'll lob bombs no matter what. :Rusty:
That's what I said, and mad Beems got butt hurt. It's probably about right tho.
-
If they say no, I'm not sure Obama has it in him to take the decision of congress and respect it. I think he'll lob bombs no matter what. :Rusty:
That's what I said, and mad Beems got butt hurt. It's probably about right tho.
His racist anger was totally uncalled for, but that's all the apologists have left in the tank.
-
Why, exactly, do we give a eff about what syria does to itself? There is literally no rough ridin' reason we should launch one missile towards anyone in that country I mean, we are all rough ridin' righteous because chemicals got used? But we sure as eff don, t care that eight year olds are killing each other in africa. Our country is so incredibly awful at leading.
-
Why, exactly, do we give a eff about what syria does to itself? There is literally no rough ridin' reason we should launch one missile towards anyone in that country I mean, we are all rough ridin' righteous because chemicals got used? But we sure as eff don, t care that eight year olds are killing each other in africa. Our country is so incredibly awful at leading.
Yeah. I mean if we want to spend a ton of money to make the world a better place with little to no benefit to us, then there are tons of more cost-effective ways to achieve that without killing women and children who are just unfortunately caught in the blast radius.
-
I'm really glad :Rusty: came back. Or has it always been here?
-
Yeah 'zacker, I basically asked that on page one and didn't get a particularly satisfactory answer. Good luck to you though
-
Yeah, for the life of me I can't figure out what firing a missile into Syria would accomplish. Unless we seriously wreck strategic crap (seems unlikely), it doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. "Oh no! ANOTHER explosion in my country!"
-
"Freedom Fighters" were busted at the Turkey-Syrian border back in the Spring with Sarin gas.
The White House isn't answering any questions about whether they'll go it alone even without a congressional vote.
-
Yeah, for the life of me I can't figure out what firing a missile into Syria would accomplish. Unless we seriously wreck strategic crap (seems unlikely), it doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. "Oh no! ANOTHER explosion in my country!"
I read something on one of the Intel blogs that hypothesized the us would use this to target the aq training camps that have poppedup
-
Yeah, for the life of me I can't figure out what firing a missile into Syria would accomplish. Unless we seriously wreck strategic crap (seems unlikely), it doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. "Oh no! ANOTHER explosion in my country!"
I read something on one of the Intel blogs that hypothesized the us would use this to target the aq training camps that have poppedup
That's a possibility I guess, but we have to sell it as targeting a Syrian base of some sort. Seems like targeting an AQ base would also be an easier sell politically. Why use the chemical weapons thing as a pretext? :dunno:
-
Oh, and I'm not sure what this cartoon means, but I thought Dax might enjoy it (I did). That's Egypt's Sisi on the left, and the title is "Last scene of US aggression circus against Syria."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTUN97DCYAAnRAd.jpg:large)
-
Every talking point has such a familiar ring and the video of John Kerry up on the Hill is video of a man desperate for an attack on Syria.
As the Harvard guys said, while the mouths say no boots on the ground, the authorization they seek is extremely open ended.
-
Also, Kerry talks about securing the stockpiles, and yet military experts say there's pretty much no way you can secure those stockpiles with a few special forces and Rangers.
-
Yeah, for the life of me I can't figure out what firing a missile into Syria would accomplish. Unless we seriously wreck strategic crap (seems unlikely), it doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. "Oh no! ANOTHER explosion in my country!"
Well, how much does a missile cost and what is the economic benefit to us in blowing up strategic crap in Syria?
-
I guess I didn't consider how inexpensive it would be. So, one check for "pro".
-
So you don't know why we are bombing either, then?
-
So you don't know why we are bombing either, then?
We would bomb Syria to keep them from gassing woman and kids. Genocide is usually permitted so long as it is done with bullets or machetes, but not permitted when unconventional means are used.
-
Here's the prob with the "saving women and kids" thing. The news already said that assad (sp) has had the military relocate a bunch of their important weapons and stuff to neighborhoods and that the armed forces have taken over dorms at the colleges. So, unless we are hitting aq camps (which is weird because aren't they the rebels against assad that McCain wants to help?) or some chem weapon storage facility that hasn't been cleared out and moved to the burbs, what exactly are we wanting to hit?
-
So you don't know why we are bombing either, then?
We would bomb Syria to keep them from gassing woman and kids. Genocide is usually permitted so long as it is done with bullets or machetes, but not permitted when unconventional means are used.
Granted. Why?
-
So you don't know why we are bombing either, then?
We would bomb Syria to keep them from gassing woman and kids. Genocide is usually permitted so long as it is done with bullets or machetes, but not permitted when unconventional means are used.
Granted. Why?
rules of war, man.
-
So you don't know why we are bombing either, then?
We would bomb Syria to keep them from gassing woman and kids. Genocide is usually permitted so long as it is done with bullets or machetes, but not permitted when unconventional means are used.
Granted. Why?
rules of war, man.
Seems like people are putting too much emphasis on hours of suffering and not enough on decades of not being alive.
-
So if Obama does start blowing crap up, does that put the "he is a muslim and muslim supporter" allegations from the nutsos to bed since he is helping AQ?
-
So you don't know why we are bombing either, then?
We would bomb Syria to keep them from gassing woman and kids. Genocide is usually permitted so long as it is done with bullets or machetes, but not permitted when unconventional means are used.
Granted. Why?
BECAUSE WE DREW A LINE! A RED ONE!
-
I mean, it seems like we have a lot of excuses for backing out on this one, and no overwhelming reason or emotional narrative driving us to get involved, except that the Germans eavesdropped on Hezbollah/Iran and caught them talking about Assad losing his crap and using chemical weapons.
-
I mean, it seems like we have a lot of excuses for backing out on this one, and no overwhelming reason or emotional narrative driving us to get involved, except that the Germans eavesdropped on Hezbollah/Iran and caught them talking about Assad losing his crap and using chemical weapons.
But maybe they Knew the germans were listening. :Wha:
-
I mean, it seems like we have a lot of excuses for backing out on this one, and no overwhelming reason or emotional narrative driving us to get involved, except that the Germans eavesdropped on Hezbollah/Iran and caught them talking about Assad losing his crap and using chemical weapons.
But maybe they Knew the germans were listening. :Wha:
That would be a pretty dirty trick to play on their bro Assad.
(the germans-->) :Lurk: (<--hezbollah and Iran)
(Assad-->) :Bullsh!t:
(Dax-->) :scary movie:
-
Only we can haze our pledges.
Why do you keep referencing me FR, aren't you just happy that the lemmings on the hill or at least the leadership are falling in line to deal with the latest "Hitler of our time"?
When gas hits $5 a gallon in Pelosi's district I demand she call (another) press conference to demand investigations into "Big Oil"
-
You're the political board's conscience, Dax. I didn't even know about the AQs sneaking chemical weapons into Syria until you mentioned it a few posts ago.
-
My Indiana coworker says we're going to invade Syria so we have another base of operations for our war with Iran. (We invaded Iraq for the same reason, apparently). This was all confirmed with his ex-CIA friend.
-
Also, we provided the chemical weapons used and wanted to be baited into war, (just like how we knew about 9-11).
-
Why do we care so much about a country we only do $40MM worth of trade with in a year?
-
Why do we care so much about a country we only do $40MM worth of trade with in a year?
base to fight a war with Iran
-
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-terrorists.html
Since this article has re-emerged suddenly all the FB political pundits are commentating.
cRustyMicMichiCat . . .
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."
Zbiginew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard)
-
This is getting serious. Obama has cancelled a fundraiser (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/320495-obama-cancels-trip-to-la-as-no-votes-on-syria-pile-up) at a Hollywood mansion. :horrorsurprise:
-
cRustycat...
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rankopedia.com%2FCandidatePix%2F96532.gif&hash=cfd57f185f7aedadf88e4b20fdaedd574c917dec)
-
So, CNN is saying that Obama said that because the UN paralysis on this issue, countries should be willing to act without UN authorization.
Also, Iran saying that we will be terrorists if we attack and then they threaten us if we do attack.
Also, Also, heard on the KC news radio this morning that congress is meeting today to finalize a resolution for 60 days of strike with 30 days additional missile work if needed, but not troops and that the resolution will be voted on early next week.
So, this all sounds to be getting worse.
-
While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.
The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/russian-official-floats-plan-to-avert-military-strike-on-syria/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D371669 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/russian-official-floats-plan-to-avert-military-strike-on-syria/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D371669)
President Obama's "Plan A" for a military strike on Syria could be in danger just one day before he makes his case to the American people as Russia, the U.N. and some in Congress push for a newly emerging "Plan B."
Gaining traction is a push to compel the Assad regime to turn over its chemical weapons.
The idea caught fire unexpectedly on Monday after Secretary of State John Kerry made an off-hand comment that Syria could resolve the stand-off by relinquishing its chemical weapons within a week. Kerry claimed that Assad "isn't about to do it" -- and an aide suggested the secretary was not being serious.
But within hours, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.
Officials with the State Department and the White House have since said they'll take a "hard look" at the Russians' proposal.
"We would welcome Assad giving up his chemical weapons. ... That would be terrific," White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said, while stressing that Congress should still vote to authorize the use of force in order to keep the pressure on Syria.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and British Prime Minister David Cameron also reportedly indicated support for the plan to have Syria turn over chemical weapons to international control. And a pair of U.S. senators is already pushing an alternative resolution in Congress that would achieve similar goals.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D, who are opposed to a strike on Syria at this time, are pushing a resolution that would give Syria 45 days to join the international convention against chemical weapons and take "concrete steps" to comply with it.
In a written statement, Heitkamp said this would have Bashar Assad "begin the process of turning over its chemical weapons."
"If, after 45 days, the Assad regime mistakes our deliberate and careful democratic process for lack of will and immunity, it does so at its own peril," she said.
Manchin and Heitkamp have been promised a vote on their proposal, Fox News is told.
It's unclear whether the Obama administration, which is pushing a military strike in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack blamed on the Assad regime, will seriously consider these offers.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki seemed to walk back Kerry's original remark, clarifying that Kerry "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."
She added: "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons otherwise he would have done so long ago."
But the State Department said later in the day that it would take a "hard look" at the proposal.
Lavrov said he has already handed over the proposal and expects a "quick, and hopefully, positive answer."
"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.
Syria's foreign minister said the country welcomes the Russian proposal.
The alternative plan could offer Obama, who is planning a national address on Tuesday, a lifeline as he prepares for a tough set of votes on Capitol Hill. The Senate could hold a key test vote as early as Wednesday. However, with the defection of Heitkamp and many others, it will be a tough climb to corral the 60 votes that are likely necessary to advance the use-of-force resolution. The House is an even tougher sell.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was expected to formally tee up the test vote on Monday.
Lavrov's statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.
Speaking earlier in the day, Lavrov denied that Russia was trying to sponsor any deal "behind the back of the Syrian people."
Seems like a pretty good "plan B."
:dunno:
-
While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.
The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.
LOL. the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower. They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow. We would run rule them.
-
While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.
The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.
LOL. the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower. They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow. We would run rule them.
I said large war, I didn't say it was going to be against the Russians, only that that Russians are saying it wasn't the regime who used gas.
-
Seems like a pretty good "plan B."
Agreed. I mean, the point was to prevent another attack, right? Excellent move by the Russians pouncing on the miscue and calling our bluff.
-
Seems like a pretty good "plan B."
Agreed. I mean, the point was to prevent another attack, right? Excellent move by the Russians pouncing on the miscue and calling our bluff.
Could this also be worth something more in helping us save face because of the fact that we talked forever about a red line and could possibly not do anything? I mean, that would be worth something politically, I would think.
-
While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.
The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.
LOL. the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower. They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow. We would run rule them.
I said large war, I didn't say it was going to be against the Russians, only that that Russians are saying it wasn't the regime who used gas.
Well how are the 2 things you posted related? Or they weren't
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/russian-official-floats-plan-to-avert-military-strike-on-syria/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D371669 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/russian-official-floats-plan-to-avert-military-strike-on-syria/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D371669)
President Obama's "Plan A" for a military strike on Syria could be in danger just one day before he makes his case to the American people as Russia, the U.N. and some in Congress push for a newly emerging "Plan B."
Gaining traction is a push to compel the Assad regime to turn over its chemical weapons.
The idea caught fire unexpectedly on Monday after Secretary of State John Kerry made an off-hand comment that Syria could resolve the stand-off by relinquishing its chemical weapons within a week. Kerry claimed that Assad "isn't about to do it" -- and an aide suggested the secretary was not being serious.
But within hours, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.
Officials with the State Department and the White House have since said they'll take a "hard look" at the Russians' proposal.
"We would welcome Assad giving up his chemical weapons. ... That would be terrific," White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said, while stressing that Congress should still vote to authorize the use of force in order to keep the pressure on Syria.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and British Prime Minister David Cameron also reportedly indicated support for the plan to have Syria turn over chemical weapons to international control. And a pair of U.S. senators is already pushing an alternative resolution in Congress that would achieve similar goals.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D, who are opposed to a strike on Syria at this time, are pushing a resolution that would give Syria 45 days to join the international convention against chemical weapons and take "concrete steps" to comply with it.
In a written statement, Heitkamp said this would have Bashar Assad "begin the process of turning over its chemical weapons."
"If, after 45 days, the Assad regime mistakes our deliberate and careful democratic process for lack of will and immunity, it does so at its own peril," she said.
Manchin and Heitkamp have been promised a vote on their proposal, Fox News is told.
It's unclear whether the Obama administration, which is pushing a military strike in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack blamed on the Assad regime, will seriously consider these offers.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki seemed to walk back Kerry's original remark, clarifying that Kerry "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."
She added: "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons otherwise he would have done so long ago."
But the State Department said later in the day that it would take a "hard look" at the proposal.
Lavrov said he has already handed over the proposal and expects a "quick, and hopefully, positive answer."
"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.
Syria's foreign minister said the country welcomes the Russian proposal.
The alternative plan could offer Obama, who is planning a national address on Tuesday, a lifeline as he prepares for a tough set of votes on Capitol Hill. The Senate could hold a key test vote as early as Wednesday. However, with the defection of Heitkamp and many others, it will be a tough climb to corral the 60 votes that are likely necessary to advance the use-of-force resolution. The House is an even tougher sell.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was expected to formally tee up the test vote on Monday.
Lavrov's statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.
Speaking earlier in the day, Lavrov denied that Russia was trying to sponsor any deal "behind the back of the Syrian people."
Seems like a pretty good "plan B."
:dunno:
A better "plan A".
Putin should have won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
-
LOL. the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower. They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow. We would run rule them.
:lol:
-
It's OK guys, if we do engage in military action, it will be an "unbelievably small, limited kind of effort." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/09/kerry_were_talking_about_an_unbelievably_small_effort_in_syria.html) That's our Secretary of State John "I fought in Vietnam" Kerry. :lol: That's this administration's version of... well, I don't have a rough ridin' clue what that is, exactly.
Basically, we've got a president who went off prompter and blithy gave an ultimatum, the ultimatum was ignored because nobody's actually intimidated by this clown, so now he thinks he's gotta do something about it or else people will think he's a pussy (they already do, hence ignoring the ultimatum in the first place), except, he is a pussy, so he doen't really want to do anything except launch a few missles at targets that have long grown stale while he continues to agonize and try to "organize" some sort of coalition. JFC.
-
How much time has to pass before we (the U.S.) can't really say we're reacting to Syria's alleged use of Chemical weapons?
All this jerking around and posturing to try and preemptively distinguish the impending bombing of Syria from Iraq is god awful, horrific foreign policy, and just another example of how terrible B.O. is at his job.
Doing nothing is fine with me, and doing something right away at least sends the message that "'merica won't stand for that type of violence", but this approach is like picking the worst of both options because it accomplishes the goal of neither while suffering all the consequences. Like someone who is lactose intolerant deciding to drink milk, but only after its expired.
-
Doing nothing is fine with me, and doing something right away at least sends the message that "'merica won't stand for that type of violence", but this approach is like picking the worst of both options because it accomplishes the goal of neither while suffering all the consequences. Like someone who is lactose intolerant deciding to drink milk, but only after its expired.
:thumbs:
-
Putin, tho :Wha:
:lol:
-
LOL, how embarrassing for the administration and other war-mongers.
-
speaking strictly as an observer of foreign diplomacy, this has been a great rough ridin' ride.
-
speaking strictly as an observer of foreign diplomacy, this has been a great rough ridin' ride.
It's so hilarious, isn't it? I mean I didn't really get a chance to see anything until the 11 o'clock news, and I literally laughed out loud during the story.
-
:sdeek: Here is why Hollywood is silent on Syria (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326).
Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.
"A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," he said.
-
So is Syria turning their chemical weapons over for good? Does whoever wins the civil war get the weapons back?
I'm confused.
-
How much time has to pass before we (the U.S.) can't really say we're reacting to Syria's alleged use of Chemical weapons?
All this jerking around and posturing to try and preemptively distinguish the impending bombing of Syria from Iraq is god awful, horrific foreign policy, and just another example of how terrible B.O. is at his job.
Doing nothing is fine with me, and doing something right away at least sends the message that "'merica won't stand for that type of violence", but this approach is like picking the worst of both options because it accomplishes the goal of neither while suffering all the consequences. Like someone who is lactose intolerant deciding to drink milk, but only after its expired.
So, your analogy is pretty great there. credit where credit is due
-
speaking strictly as an observer of foreign diplomacy, this has been a great rough ridin' ride.
It's so hilarious, isn't it? I mean I didn't really get a chance to see anything until the 11 o'clock news, and I literally laughed out loud during the story.
I had no idea what was going on until I turned on the news yesterday afternoon and saw Hillary speaking with a ticker that said "Clinton calls Russian proposal on Kerry's off-script remark a 'good step'". Obviously, I was hooked immediately.
The former secretary and potential presidential candidate endorsed a proposal from a rival with whom we currently have exceptionally tense relations based on a gaffe from the current secretary and failed presidential candidate made while trying to explain the current president's plan that firing a missile from the ocean into syria a month after a chemical attack would be a deterrent (all while Assad's wife is looking FABULOUS on instagram).
What's not to love here? It's just amazing television. I mean, it's pretty clumsy governance, but AMAZING television.
-
Congrats to Vlad, new leader of the free world for getting this "deal" off the ground.
Meanwhile, Russian Coast Guard ships are threatening to shoot Greenpeace ships if they interfere with Russian gas exploration in the Arctic.
The Chinese and the Russians . . . A new world order.
-
It will be interesting to see what the Hard Left Blogosphere and the Harvard Legal Experts think of ObamaWarMonger's failure to maintain his status as The World's Biggest Arms Dealer. You know the Obamabot pissboys will defend him no matter what. They'll probably maintain the "Concerned With Hezbollah" act and talk some more about Sarin gas. I'm probs just being Captain Obvious here.
also, great news for american taxpayers about russia and china stepping up to ease the american role as world police.
-
It was just becoming waaaay to much of a hassle to be leader of the free world. I'm glad Russia is going to give us a breather. Plus, now the world will love us more.
-
From Second City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ) :lol:
-
It was just becoming waaaay to much of a hassle to be leader of the free world. I'm glad Russia is going to give us a breather. Plus, now the world will love us more.
As GWB once said, "Being the President is hard".
-
Putin will pull the rug out from under Obama on this deal. Just when you thought we couldn't look any dumber.......
-
Putin will pull the rug out from under Obama on this deal. Just when you thought we he couldn't look any dumber.......
FYP
-
Watch the Racist Patrol may drop by. You guys may have crossed the line :ohno:
-
Putin will pull the rug out from under Obama on this deal. Just when you thought we couldn't look any dumber.......
Is it "pulling the rug out" if Obama already knows that this "deal" isn't going to do a damned thing, which he most certainly does? Show of hands: who here thinks Assad is actually going to give up his "WMD"?
Obama doesn't actually believe in this "deal." Pussy, yes. Incompetent, yes. But he's not a total rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). This just gives him the convenient life line to pull back from actually having to take any military action because he stupidly gave an ultimatum that he had no desire to actually enforce. So now Putin sweeps in and kills two birds with one stone: He gets to make Obama (and by extension, America) look like the incompetent little weakling he is, and he gets to help his buddy Assad with a little "wink wink" deal that will never be enforced. Somebody call Hans Blix out of retirement!
Congrats liberals - you finally got Jimmy Carter's second term. Aint it swell?
-
Putin will pull the rug out from under Obama on this deal. Just when you thought we couldn't look any dumber.......
Is it "pulling the rug out" if Obama already knows that this "deal" isn't going to do a damned thing, which he most certainly does? Show of hands: who here thinks Assad is actually going to give up his "WMD"?
Obama doesn't actually believe in this "deal." Pussy, yes. Incompetent, yes. But he's not a total rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). This just gives him the convenient life line to pull back from actually having to take any military action because he stupidly gave an ultimatum that he had no desire to actually enforce. So now Putin sweeps in and kills two birds with one stone: He gets to make Obama (and by extension, America) look like the incompetent little weakling he is, and he gets to help his buddy Assad with a little "wink wink" deal that will never be enforced. Somebody call Hans Blix out of retirement!
Congrats liberals - you finally got Jimmy Carter's second term. Aint it swell?
lol
-
So now KSU Cats is pissed because Obama isn't bombing Syria? Tough crowd
-
So now KSU Cats is pissed because Obama isn't bombing Syria? Tough crowd
Not pissed, just disgusted. He put himself in this position to begin with with an ultimatum he never wanted to enforce, and now he further degrades American prestige by being a pussy.
-
But, if he had bombed Assad, you would also be critical, right?
-
this really sucks because American prestige was at an all-time high before the obama being a pussy thing
-
this really sucks because American prestige was at an all-time high before the obama being a pussy thing
thanks obama
-
If President Obama was a Republican, the right wing herd would be talking about how he just bluffed Putin into taking action on Syria, without spending a single dollar or dropping a single bomb.
God bless the herd.
-
Just waiting on the legions of Obamabot Zombies to roll out the Narrative that this was Obama's plan all along . . . when in reality he and John Kerry were gunning for war the whole time and have for years.
A war financed by Islamic Theocratic Dictatorships no less.
-
Vlad Putin, new leader of the free world is on track to surpass former leader of the free world Barrack Obama as world's largest arms dealer.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130911-russia-renew-offer-supply-300s-iran
-
Pretty telling move by our leadership that we're no longer concerned with being the world's #1 supplier of warmongering equipment. Seems like a step in the right direction.
-
People keep taking about positives as if they are negatives
-
Pretty telling move by our leadership that we're no longer concerned with being the world's #1 supplier of warmongering equipment. Seems like a step in the right direction.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, we're still sending billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere as well as trying to push the F-15 Silent Eagle (amongst many systems) on the Taiwanese, Koreans and Japanese.
-
Obama: The president who moved us off the top spot in international arms sales.
Seems like a pretty solid accomplishment, one that should be welcomed by anti-warmongers and Obama-bot zombies alike. I'd say we all come out winners as Americans on this one.
-
Obama: The president who moved us off the top spot in international arms sales.
Seems like a pretty solid accomplishment, one that should be welcomed by anti-warmongers and Obama-bot zombies alike. I'd say we all come out winners as Americans on this one.
We're not even close to being off the top, but Vlad is making the effort.
-
You mean Obama is NOT making the effort to preserve our dominance of warmongering. Important, peace-prizing distinction. He will not be baited into a new cold war arms race, and I applaud him for that.
-
You mean Obama is NOT making the effort to preserve our dominance of warmongering. Important, peace-prizing distinction. He will not be baited into a new cold war arms race, and I applaud him for that.
Obama may not be, but the U.S. defense industry is doing all they can, with Gov't blessing. Good news, the Koreans appear to be about ready to purchase 60 Boeing Silent Eagles, and the arms are pouring into Saudi Arabia.
Looks like we're gonna maintain that 4 or 5% world market share lead in 2013!!
-
Plus, let's not forget Felix, 2012 was a blockbuster year in U.S. exports, twe-nty billion above the t-en year average, come on, even Gordon Gekko can't expect that kind of growth to be sustained.
-
Trending down, tho
-
10 more days and we'll have the answer to the poll question. Looks like those who voted "nope" have the advantage.
-
You mean Obama is NOT making the effort to preserve our dominance of warmongering. Important, peace-prizing distinction. He will not be baited into a new cold war arms race, and I applaud him for that.
Baited? Have you forgotten that his stupid ultimatum is what got us into this in the first place?
-
If President Obama was a Republican, the right wing herd would be talking about how he just bluffed Putin into taking action on Syria, without spending a single dollar or dropping a single bomb.
God bless the herd.
No, we wouldn't you rough ridin' dunce. And again, Putin is the one who is bluffing. This won't accomplish a damned thing.
-
But, if he had bombed Assad, you would also be critical, right?
You mean that "teeny tiny incredibly limited so small you won't even feel it" military action promised by our SoS on national TV? The one we only would have done so Obama could save face for Syria crossing an ultimatum he never intended to enforce? Yeah, I would have been critical of that. Obama put himself (and us) in this box, so I'm critical of either outcome.
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
How would you define disarm?
-
The timeline in the administration's own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPoqyvBtb84). What a masterstroke of diplomacy. :lol:
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
How would you define disarm?
take from them the weapons that people don't want them to possess.
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
How would you define disarm?
take from them the weapons that people don't want them to possess.
Cool, and you think that's really going to happen? Srsly? Hans Blix better pack his suitcase.
-
This is just like when JFK stared the Ruskys down over Cuba. Now we have Dax's 15 to 25 days in Aug.-Sept.
-
Maureen Dowd gets it. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?_r=1&)
WASHINGTON — Vladimir Putin, who keeps Edward Snowden on a leash and lets members of a riotous girl band rot in jail, has thrown President Obama a lifeline.
The Russian president had coldly brushed back Obama on Snowden and Syria, and only last week called John Kerry a liar.
Now, when it is clear Obama can’t convince Congress, the American public, his own wife, the world, Liz Cheney or even Donald “Shock and Awe” Rumsfeld to bomb Syria — just a teensy-weensy bit — Pooty-Poot (as W. called him) rides, shirtless, to the rescue, offering him a face-saving way out? If it were a movie, we’d know it was a trick. We can’t trust the soulless Putin — his Botox has given the former K.G.B. officer even more of a poker face — or the heartless Bashar al-Assad. By Tuesday, Putin the Peacemaker was already setting conditions.
Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.
Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.
Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support. The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an “unbelievably small” effort.
A State Department spokeswoman walked back Kerry’s first slip, but once the White House realized it was the only emergency exit sign around, Kerry walked back the walking back, claiming at a Congressional hearing Tuesday that he did not “misspeak.”
The president countered Kerry’s second slip with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie Monday night, declaring that “The U.S. does not do pinpricks,” which Kerry parroted at the hearing Tuesday, declaring that “We don’t do pinpricks.” For good measure, Obama, in his address to the nation Tuesday night, made sure the world knew: “The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”
But don't take Maureen's word for it - watch the timeline video linked above.
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
How would you define disarm?
take from them the weapons that people don't want them to possess.
Its not really going to happen. Putin being Putin.
-
You mean Obama is NOT making the effort to preserve our dominance of warmongering. Important, peace-prizing distinction. He will not be baited into a new cold war arms race, and I applaud him for that.
Baited? Have you forgotten that his stupid ultimatum is what got us into this in the first place?
I'm not entirely sure you're following what's going on around here right now.
-
Vlad's no dummy, taking away Assad's Iraqi produced chemical and nerve weapons only means that he can sell the regime more conventional weapons.
They're only 4 or 5% points (which still equates to billions) away from the #1 spot, and with the U.S. blowing it out in 2012 and a few months left in the year. :crossfingers:
-
Dax is at his best in this thread
-
Dax is at his best in this thread
And KSU Wildcats.
I have never voted for Obama so I think he is kind of screwy BUT if you think absolutely everything he has ever done, ever is a horrible idea and you just repeat "Obamabot" and "Libtard" over and over this is the thread where you can gorge yourself like a vulture at a carcass
-
So is Syria turning their chemical weapons over for good? Does whoever wins the civil war get the weapons back?
I'm confused.
Bump
-
So is Syria turning their chemical weapons over for good? Does whoever wins the civil war get the weapons back?
I'm confused.
Bump
Don't be silly, benji. They go to al qaeda. On the 12 year anniversary no less!!!
-
I don't think everything that Obama has done has been bad, not by a long shot.
But what's the endgame in Syria, what was the endgame in Libya . . . the same for Iraq (Not Obama)?
Destroyed/destabilized countries don't pose a threat and easier to control (as long you control the right people)?? That's a serious game of, pardon the pun, Russian Roulette. Because only a dummy can't see what can be fermented in the rubble. This also really has nothing to do with Democracy. For me, Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" is the primer for all of this, control of Central Asia, thwarting the influence of Russia and China and their proxies of which Iraq, Syria and Iran are/were the biggest. JMO
-
So is Syria turning their chemical weapons over for good? Does whoever wins the civil war get the weapons back?
I'm confused.
Bump
benji, CNN story yesterday said that they would be turned over "...and eventually destroyed". Didn't really say who would destroy them or timing, or anything.
That said, who would want this responsibility? I mean, think of how secure of a location you would have to have to make this feasible and the level of threat you would be taking on from others by simply possessing them. No thanks.
-
I don't think everything that Obama has done has been bad, not by a long shot.
But what's the endgame in Syria, what was the endgame in Libya . . . the same for Iraq (Not Obama)?
Destroyed/destabilized countries don't pose a threat and easier to control (as long you control the right people)?? That's a serious game of, pardon the pun, Russian Roulette. Because only a dummy can't see what can be fermented in the rubble. This also really has nothing to do with Democracy. For me, Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" is the primer for all of this, control of Central Asia, thwarting the influence of Russia and China and their proxies of which Iraq, Syria and Iran are/were the biggest. JMO
Not sure there is an endgame in Syria. We haven't committed troops. We can sit back and watch.
I don't think we want to commit troops. We (US Gov) doesn't truly care if Assad gases some AQ families so why rush to do crap (except Obama made a vague threat that we would)? I get the US has to maintain some type of international standing but, in reality, the people that hate us are going to hate us. Those that think we are soft are going top keep thinking we are soft. Bombing the crap out of Assad's positions from a month ago won't change that even a little bit.
Those that don't think we are soft won't change and any of them that doubts we have the will or might to decimate a country if truly threatened hasn't paid attention and doesn't understand that even the most liberal of our leaders turns into a hawk when the time is right (their donors ask for a fight).
-
It's about control of the region, the gassing is just an excuse to exercise more control, the powers that be and have been really don't care if the people there like us or not as long as they control who gets the guns and who doesn't.
This administration as I've said has been looking for the trigger event ever since they decided to overthrow Assad nearly 3 years ago.
-
This administration as I've said has been looking for the trigger event ever since they decided to overthrow Assad nearly fizz years ago.
Clearly not or the bombs would be dropping.
-
This administration as I've said has been looking for the trigger event ever since they decided to overthrow Assad nearly fizz years ago.
Clearly not or the bombs would be dropping.
Oh please, Kerry couldn't wait to march up to the hill and try and build a case for war, the only reason there isn't bombs dropping is because the usual Hawks and the Administration are all alone in wanting to do so, they have zilch in terms of world opinion, zilch in terms of the UN and zilch in terms of US public opinion and the strongest push back yet from Russia and China in the last 10 years.
-
Dax continues to tiptoe around the fact that he hates Democrats and liberals in general. President Obama just worked towards an international resolution that doesn't involve military action, and yet, Dax and the rest of the right wing herd are pissed. They are desperate for a crisis. This is all a game for them. Not one mention of the 1400 civilians who were killed by chemical weapons. Not one mention of the atrocities of the Assad regime. They just want another excuse to criticize Obama, and somehow justify their hatred for anyone who doesn't suck the collective male genitals of the Republican party.
-
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/10/the-president-makes-the-case/ (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/10/the-president-makes-the-case/)
I’m tired of the eye-rolling and the easy nit-picking of the president’s leadership on this over the last few weeks. The truth is: his threat of war galvanized the world and America, raised the profile of the issue of chemical weapons more powerfully than ever before, ensured that this atrocity would not be easily ignored and fostered a diplomatic initiative to resolve the issue without use of arms. All the objectives he has said he wanted from the get-go are now within reach, and the threat of military force – even if implicit – remains.
Yes, it’s been messy. A more cautious president would have ducked it. Knowing full well it could scramble his presidency, Obama nonetheless believed that stopping chemical weapons use is worth it – for the long run, and for Americans as well as Syrians. Putin understands this as well. Those chemical weapons, if uncontrolled, could easily slip into the hands of rebels whose second target, after Assad and the Alawites and the Christians, would be Russia.
This emphatically does not solve the Syria implosion. But Obama has never promised to.
What it does offer is a nonviolent way toward taking the chemical weapons issue off the table. Just because we cannot solve everything does not mean we cannot solve something. And the core truth is that without Obama’s willingness to go out on a precarious limb, we would not have that opportunity.
The money quote for me, apart from the deeply moving passage about poison gas use at the end, was his description of a letter from a service-member who told him, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” President Obama said, quite simply: “I agree.” And those on the far right who are accusing him of ceding the Middle East to Russia are half-right and yet completely wrong. What this remarkable breakthrough has brought about is a possible end to the dynamic in which America is both blamed for all the evils in the world and then also blamed for not stopping all of them. We desperately need to rebuild international cooperation to relieve us of that impossible burden in a cycle that can only hurt us and the West again and again.
-
Is dax right wing? I don't get that impression.
-
This administration as I've said has been looking for the trigger event ever since they decided to overthrow Assad nearly fizz years ago.
Clearly not or the bombs would be dropping.
Oh please, Kerry couldn't wait to march up to the hill and try and build a case for war, the only reason there isn't bombs dropping is because the usual Hawks and the Administration are all alone in wanting to do so, they have zilch in terms of world opinion, zilch in terms of the UN and zilch in terms of US public opinion and the strongest push back yet from Russia and China in the last buzz years.
Couldn't wait? How long between the reports of gas and his request?
-
Obama's cuban missile crisis?
-
Beems just spews forth the party line. He says the same $hit, just different ways in every post.
How can anyone possibly say there's been a resolution, when to the general public's knowledge there hasn't been any chemical weapons turned over as of yet, fighting still continues, Russia still arms Assad's regime and the U.S. is still training "freedom fighters", and using proxies to support the radical Islamic fighters that are in Syria right now??
Absurd
-
But, but an International Resolution?!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24051440
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Syrian-rebel-forces-trained-by-West-are-moving-towards-Damascus-324033
-
It's pretty great that Beems found an editorial saying seriously what we've been saying sarcastically. What a day for Dax.
-
I'm sorry you've accepted the right wing rhetoric when it comes to Obama and Syria, felix. Personally, I oppose airstrikes on Syria, and I'm glad that Putin stepped up and offered a Plan B. The fact that Obama is willing to strongly consider another option besides airstrikes is the very reason I voted for him. He's pragmatic and doesn't let the threat of personal criticism dictate his decision-making.
-
The objective eye has called out felix rex for his tainted views.
-
but forget to mention that Obama has us trending down as a global arms supplier. That's a pretty great accomplishment. Probably like the first president in a bunch of decades to do that.
-
Felix Rex and right wing rhetoric?? :lol:
Beems Chamberlain and the redefining of "peace in our time", hey, as long as the people are JUST dying from conventional weapons, that's a "brokered resolution".
-
Felix Rex and right wing rhetoric?? :lol:
Beems Chamberlain and the redefining of "peace in our time", hey, as long as the people are JUST dying from conventional weapons, that's a "brokered resolution".
You offer nothing but criticism, despite the fact that the US is trying to avoid military action. What's your solution for Syria, Captain Pacifist?
-
Felix Rex and right wing rhetoric?? :lol:
Beems Chamberlain and the redefining of "peace in our time", hey, as long as the people are JUST dying from conventional weapons, that's a "brokered resolution".
You offer nothing but criticism, despite the fact that the US is trying to avoid military action. What's your solution for Syria, Captain Pacifist?
The only reason the U.S. is "avoiding" military action is because world opinion is totally against it and the U.S. has no mandate on any level. Not from the people, not from the UN, and not from the U.S.'s legislative bodies. Had this administration been given that mandate by any of the formal entities in that set, the U.S. would likely already be bombing.
It's absolutely laughable that you don't consider the purposeful training of, the logistical support of, the brokering of 3rd parties in support of these so called "freedom fighters" by the United States acts of war. If the same actions were executed against the United States by other nations or entities they would be considered acts of war against the United States.
Then to call this situation resolved? Laughable.
Here's a solution, how about the United States quit sowing chaos in the Middle East.
-
Not to be argumentative, but I'd say we're not really sowing chaos so much as fertilizing it.
-
Plus, let's not forget Felix, 2012 was a blockbuster year in U.S. exports, twe-nty billion above the t-en year average, come on, even Gordon Gekko can't expect that kind of growth to be sustained.
i assume this is to get around the word filter, but it's so daxy that i really don't know for sure :whistle1:
-
I can't stop thinking about how Barry The Messiah went to Congress to ask if we could drop bombs. That hasn't happened for decades. It's such a great signal for future American foreign policy. He deserves a statue while still in office just like our guy Bill.
-
I can't stop thinking about how Barry The Messiah went to Congress to ask if we could drop bombs. That hasn't happened for decades. It's such a great signal for future American foreign policy. He deserves a statue while still in office just like our guy Bill.
He's just following in GWB's footsteps when he got approval from congress to go into Iraq.
-
I can't stop thinking about how Barry The Messiah went to Congress to ask if we could drop bombs. That hasn't happened for decades. It's such a great signal for future American foreign policy. He deserves a statue while still in office just like our guy Bill.
He's just following in GWB's footsteps when he got approval from congress to go into Iraq.
And he didn't even lie about it. Progress!
-
Felix Rex and right wing rhetoric?? :lol:
Beems Chamberlain and the redefining of "peace in our time", hey, as long as the people are JUST dying from conventional weapons, that's a "brokered resolution".
You offer nothing but criticism, despite the fact that the US is trying to avoid military action. What's your solution for Syria, Captain Pacifist?
The only reason the U.S. is "avoiding" military action is because world opinion is totally against it and the U.S. has no mandate on any level. Not from the people, not from the UN, and not from the U.S.'s legislative bodies. Had this administration been given that mandate by any of the formal entities in that set, the U.S. would likely already be bombing.
It's absolutely laughable that you don't consider the purposeful training of, the logistical support of, the brokering of 3rd parties in support of these so called "freedom fighters" by the United States acts of war. If the same actions were executed against the United States by other nations or entities they would be considered acts of war against the United States.
Then to call this situation resolved? Laughable.
Here's a solution, how about the United States quit sowing chaos in the Middle East.
You're a rough ridin' joke. The United States isn't slaughtering over a hundred thousand of our own people right now in the midst of a civil war. If we were, I would welcome intervention from other countries. As it is, the US and Russia are trying to work towards a diplomatic solution to disarm Syria's chemical weapons. The only reason Russia is working with us is because they know the United States is serious about military airstrikes, and Syria is one of their main trading partners. Up until this point, this administration has done everything in its power to avoid military intervention in the Middle East, including ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your solution is vague and disingenuous at best. In a global economy, we can't just sit back and let chaos unfold in the Middle East. We can't just sit back and wait for another terrorist attack like ni-ne/eleven. We can't just sit back and watch as fundamentalist extremists butcher little girls for trying to get an education.
And last but not least, I have never said that this situation in Syria is "resolved," only that the US and Russia are working towards a resolution. Don't you dare try to put words in my mouth.
edit - this fizz/buzz bullshit is the dumbest rough ridin' thing I've ever seen. Hey cool, you guys have played beer die. Awesome.
-
Not to be argumentative, but I'd say we're not really sowing chaos so much as fertilizing it.
:thumbs:
I, for one, am glad the administration gaffed and blundered their way out of a war. It's far superior to prestigiously starting (or joining) one.
-
I can't stop thinking about how Barry The Messiah went to Congress to ask if we could drop bombs. That hasn't happened for decades. It's such a great signal for future American foreign policy. He deserves a statue while still in office just like our guy Bill.
He's just following in GWB's footsteps when he got approval from congress to go into Iraq.
And he didn't even lie about it. Progress!
We aren't sure about that yet.
-
Not sure what Beems is all butthurt about, but man, he's being kind of mean.
-
Not sure what Beems is all butthurt about, but man, he's being kind of mean.
His hero is slowly becoming GWB.
-
Not sure what Beems is all butthurt about, but man, he's being kind of mean.
His hero is slowly becoming GWB.
Only two wars to go and the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, and Obama might start sniffing GWB territory.
-
Not to be argumentative, but I'd say we're not really sowing chaos so much as fertilizing it.
:thumbs:
I, for one, am glad the administration gaffed and blundered their way out of a war. It's far superior to prestigiously starting (or joining) one.
There's a good chance of some fun "according to a state dept official" type columns coming out about this. In a year or so, we may see smaller-scale Vali Nasr-type stuff, depending on the fallout. #captainobvious
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
How would you define disarm?
take from them the weapons that people don't want them to possess.
Cool, and you think that's really going to happen? Srsly? Hans Blix better pack his suitcase.
I really don't understand the humor here. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Sadaam Hussein's invitation to Hans Blix and the UN to return and resume inspections would've saved everyone a lot of trouble. Perhaps it would've even saved Sadaam and his sons. Unfortunately, the US blocked that and began more than a decade of war and occupation of a country for reasons that were later found to have been inaccurate.
-
Obama got Russia to disarm it's own proxy state. What a rough ridin' hero.
How would you define disarm?
take from them the weapons that people don't want them to possess.
Cool, and you think that's really going to happen? Srsly? Hans Blix better pack his suitcase.
I really don't understand the humor here. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Sadaam Hussein's invitation to Hans Blix and the UN to return and resume inspections would've saved everyone a lot of trouble. Perhaps it would've even saved Sadaam and his sons. Unfortunately, the US blocked that and began more than a decade of war and occupation of a country for reasons that were later found to have been inaccurate.
:lol:
-
Had we not invaded iraq in 03 assad would have no palaces left right now
-
Voted for the Iraqi War/Major Proponents for Regime Change in Iraq: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry
Party in full control of Congress from 2006 to 2010 (Worst part of Recession): Democrats
Swept into power promising lower deficits, lowering national debt, war extraction, "getting big oil: Fail, Fail, Fail and Fail
Nearly 75% of all U.S. casualties in Afghanistan occured under the Obama Administration.
Current Status of the Middle East under the Obama Administration: More Strife, upheaval and destabilization than ever.
Countries left in ruins with no central governmental control by U.S./NATO backed actions: Libya, Syria (Pending), Yemen (Pending)
Theocratic Dictatorships propped up by Obama Administration: Numerous
-
i can't pay attention to read what he writes because i'm always wondering why he capitalizes some random words but not others.
-
i can't pay attention to read what he writes because i'm always wondering why he capitalizes some random words but not others.
dax is known for major grammar blunders
-
i can't pay attention to read what he writes because i'm always wondering why he capitalizes some random words but not others.
those are usually the best ones. dead giveaway that he's firing on all cylinders
-
i can't pay attention to read what he writes because i'm always wondering why he capitalizes some random words but not others.
those are usually the best ones. dead giveaway that he's firing on all cylinders
Agreed. And I they're intentional, like he's not talking about our filtered and shadowy perception of strife, but rather his unchained grasp of the very form of Strife itself.
-
Beems Chamberlain steps off the plane waving a piece of paper in the air . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
-
You guys see the backlash to this Putin letter? In it, he says "god created us equal" as some sort of a response to Obama saying "we're exceptional". Bunch of pissed off retards out there now, guys
Thinking Putin wants us to go to war, but wants us to look as stupid as possible by doing so and also wants to look like he was against it and had a simple deal on the table to prevent it.
-
Also, I wish Putin had an english personal twitter acct.
-
steve dave, do you think barry should smoke 'em?
-
Voted for the Iraqi War/Major Proponents for Regime Change in Iraq: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry
Party in full control of Congress from 2006 to 2010 (Worst part of Recession): Democrats
Swept into power promising lower deficits, lowering national debt, war extraction, "getting big oil: Fail, Fail, Fail and Fail
Nearly 75% of all U.S. casualties in Afghanistan occured under the Obama Administration.
Current Status of the Middle East under the Obama Administration: More Strife, upheaval and destabilization than ever.
Countries left in ruins with no central governmental control by U.S./NATO backed actions: Libya, Syria (Pending), Yemen (Pending)
Theocratic Dictatorships propped up by Obama Administration: Numerous
I loved how random this was
-
How was it random, all of those topics were discussed on this thread.
-
Also, I wish Putin had an english personal twitter acct.
Oh my god. I would pay to subscribe. I imagine a Putin Instagram like a Sammy Sosa Pinterest but with less shirts.
-
New leader of the free world pens an op-ed for the NYT.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said a New York Times op-ed on Syria penned by Russian President Vladimir Putin made him want "to vomit" — echoing a sentiment being widely expressed Thursday on Capitol Hill.
In the op-ed, published Wednesday night, Putin again warned the United States not to launch military strikes on Syria. He maintained that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime was not responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in which more than 1,400 people died, according to U.S. officials.
“I almost wanted to vomit,” Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, (D-N.J.) told CNN.
“I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests, and what is not. It really raises the question of how serious the Russian proposal is.”
President Carter is doing a bang up job from under his desk.
-
How was it random, all of those topics were discussed on this thread.
yeah, over the course of a couple weeks.
It was great.
-
Good god, even uber-lib Joe Klein is piling on.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/ (http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/)
he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed. The failure cuts straight to the heart of a perpetual criticism of the Obama White House: that the President thinks he can do foreign policy all by his lonesome.
-
UN says it has received Syria's application to join Chemical Weapons Convention:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24068867#TWEET887783 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24068867#TWEET887783)
(cue Dax getting pissed about this because he can't make a direct correlation now between Obama and his hero GWB)
-
Apparently the Obama administration had been talking with the Russians about a diplomatic solution long before Kerry made his off-the-cuff comment on Monday:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324094704579067574165010740.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324094704579067574165010740.html)
In April, Mr. Kerry made his first trip to Moscow as secretary of state and took part in a dinner with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that lasted until 2:30 a.m.
They discussed a model for eliminating Syria's chemical weapons, much as Libya agreed to give up its nuclear program a decade ago, the administration official said.
In June, the U.S. concluded that Mr. Assad's forces had used chemical weapons on a small scale—and Mr. Obama authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to help arm moderate fighters battling the Assad regime. Russia continued to avow its support for Damascus.
Then came the attack on Aug. 21 in the outskirts of Damascus, which the U.S. concluded was carried out by the Assad regime and killed more than 1,400 people.
After the attack, the talks between Messrs. Kerry and Lavrov picked up steam: They have talked fizz times since Aug. 21, the administration official said. As Messrs. Obama and Kerry made forceful declarations that the attack deserved a strong, punitive response, Russia defended Damascus, and said that rebels, not the regime, were responsible.
-
Voted for the Iraqi War/Major Proponents for Regime Change in Iraq: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry
Party in full control of Congress from 2006 to 2010 (Worst part of Recession): Democrats
Swept into power promising lower deficits, lowering national debt, war extraction, "getting big oil: Fail, Fail, Fail and Fail
Nearly 75% of all U.S. casualties in Afghanistan occured under the Obama Administration.
Current Status of the Middle East under the Obama Administration: More Strife, upheaval and destabilization than ever.
Countries left in ruins with no central governmental control by U.S./NATO backed actions: Libya, Syria (Pending), Yemen (Pending)
Theocratic Dictatorships propped up by Obama Administration: Numerous
I loved how random this was
If by "random," you mean totally one-sided, then I agree. Let's summarize:
1. Takes specific shots at Democratic party leaders - check
2. Blames recession on congressional Democrats - check
3A. Claims budget deficits haven't been lowered, when indeed they have - check
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.static.newsvine.com%2Fservista%2Fimagesizer%3Ffile%3Dsteve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&hash=c3951a05fa045d1de2212d03af42de24f4a3f485)
3B. Claims national debt is Democrats' fault, when in reality, Clinton was the last President to make a dent in the national debt - check
3C. Implies we haven't ended, or began to end, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when in fact we have - check
3D. Claims the Obama administration hasn't done anything to combat Big Oil/Energy, when in fact they have - check
4. Blames 75% of Afghanistan casualties on Obama - check
buzz. Blames escalation of conflict in Middle East on Obama - check
fizz. Blames situations in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and those that haven't yet happened on Obama - check
But really guys, Dax is just an altruistic pacifist who wants to see world peace and unicorns and sh*t.
-
LOL Maddow blog
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.static.newsvine.com%2Fservista%2Fimagesizer%3Ffile%3Dsteve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&hash=c3951a05fa045d1de2212d03af42de24f4a3f485)
-
Gov't FY Budget Deficits:
2003: $377.59 Billion
2004: $412.78 Billion
2005: $318.35 Billion
2006: $248.fizz Billion
2007: $160.71 Billion
2008: $458.55 Billion
2009: $1.412 Trillion
2010: $1.294 Trillion
2011: $1.299 Trillion
2012: $1.086 Trillion
Libya in Ruins: Obama Administration
Syria in Ruins: Obama Administration
75% of casualties in Afghanistan-Obama (Obama's War)
Unemployment above 7%, how many consecutive years now? Minority Unemployment in the double digits for how many years in a row now?
Syria- Resolved in Beems Chamberlain fantasy land.
Total Federal Deficit Spending using actual and budgeted (projected) Federal numbers for the Entire Obama Administration: $8.396 Trillion
-
Now that this Syria chemical weapons situation looks like it will be resolved through a peaceful, diplomatic process, Dax is just lashing out at anything and everything. This is great.
-
LOL Maddow blog
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.static.newsvine.com%2Fservista%2Fimagesizer%3Ffile%3Dsteve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&hash=c3951a05fa045d1de2212d03af42de24f4a3f485)
(https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_27012012_Budget_Deficit_of_the_United_States_Government_n.jpg)
-
Now that this Syria chemical weapons situation looks like it will be resolved through a peaceful, diplomatic process, Dax is just lashing out at anything and everything. This is great.
Hold the phone, Beems.
Syria came out today and said that they only turn them over if we stop with the threat of war. We are saying war threat is only reason they offered and if we remove the threat, what will make them follow through.
Could be the end of it. Especially with Putin angrying up the chest thumpers.
-
Meanwhile back in reality, as the administration arms the rebels directly and continues their clandestine/proxy regime change in Syria that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands, this emoticon captures the essence of their measures to try and keep U.S. directly supplied weapons and systems out of the hands of Al Queda aligned forces . . . :crossfingers: At the same time U.S. backed theocratic dictatorships (of which we sell billions of dollars of weapons to) continue to supply weapons (likely with CIA direction) to AQ aligned "freedom fighters" who in between slaughtering Syrian Soliders, slaughter Christians and non Muslims.
This is Beems WarHawk (but only if a Democrat is president) definition of "resolved".
-
Meanwhile back in reality, as the administration arms the rebels directly and continues their clandestine/proxy regime change in Syria that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands, this emoticon captures the essence of their measures to try and keep U.S. directly supplied weapons and systems out of the hands of Al Queda aligned forces . . . :crossfingers: At the same time U.S. backed theocratic dictatorships (of which we sell billions of dollars of weapons to) continue to supply weapons (likely with CIA direction) to AQ aligned "freedom fighters" who in between slaughtering Syrian Soliders, slaughter Christians and non Muslims.
This is Beems WarHawk (but only if a Democrat is president) definition of "resolved".
Now he's blaming the entire Syria situation on the United States. Keep going, Dax!
:lol:
Who said anything about Democrats being solely responsible for Syria Beems Warhawk?
My comment was about your idiotic comments concerning the situation being resolved and how all you seem to care about is whether the killing can be done without regular military and economically. All you and most Obamabot Warhawks can roll out is the same tired arguments about Freedom and Democracy and "fightin terra" and it has nothing to do with that.
Just say no to regime change: Unless a Democrat is President
We hated the CIA!!: Until Obama was elected
-
For the last time, I have never said that the situation in Syria is resolved, only that the US and Russia are working towards a resolution. I have never supported US airstrikes in Syria. Not once. Quit trying to spin this like I'm some warhawk, you right wing lunatic piece of crap. You are a coward and your mission to slander and demonize this administration is blatantly transparent.
-
For the last time, I have never said that the situation in Syria is resolved, only that the US and Russia are working towards a resolution. I have never supported US airstrikes in Syria. Not once. Quit trying to spin this like I'm some warhawk, you right wing lunatic piece of crap. You are a coward and your mission to slander and demonize this administration is blatantly transparent.
There's nothing peaceful and diplomatic about putting lethal weaponry into the hands of Muslim Extremists in order to bring about regime change that's killed thousands and created hundreds of thousands of refugee's Beems War (economically done) Hawk.
-
Also, quit blaming the situation in Syria and every mumped up country in the Middle East on the United States. The Muslims and Christians have been fighting each other long before the United States even existed.
-
Also, quit blaming the situation in Syria and every mumped up country in the Middle East on the United States. The Muslims and Christians have been fighting each other long before the United States even existed.
The war in Syria has very little, if really anything to do with Muslims and Christians fighting, Muslims killing by and large unarmed Christians is just an offshoot of a situation that the United States has help create. Your strawman is absurd.
-
Also, quit blaming the situation in Syria and every mumped up country in the Middle East on the United States. The Muslims and Christians have been fighting each other long before the United States even existed.
The war in Syria has very little, if really anything to do with Muslims and Christians fighting, Muslims killing by and large unarmed Christians is just an offshoot of a situation that the United States has help create. Your strawman is absurd.
I don't think you know what a strawman is, and seriously, quit blaming the United States for everything. It's not our fault that Assad started killing protestors and slaughtering thousands of his own people. As for my point about Muslims and Christians, they have been fighting various wars for thousands of years now, whether it's against each other or another group. This isn't new.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FTHISGONBGUD.gif&hash=7fa0abca837d4ae57291ecff4e774dbf64a66988)
but opposite whenever Beems and dax go after each other
-
Again, Muslims killing Christians is only a sidebar. The United States and it's Theocratic Dictatorship proxy's are putting the weapons into the hands of the Islamic Extremists in order to bring about regime change, along the way they're killing Christians. Unless you're going to try and tell me that Islamic oriented forces taking control of Christian enclaves in Syria would have happened regardless of the attempt to overthrow Assad? If so, that's just laughable all things considered.
I know exactly what a strawman is, and when you start throwing out cowboys and indians all encompassing BS I know you've got nothing. Hey American Indians fighting for more Gov't support and legislative representation, don't blame us because of those Pilgrams or Columbus.
It's highly likely, if not 100% reality that it was the United States and/or Western Intelligence agencies and/or the agents of the Theocratic Dictatorships we support who fostered the political unrest in Syria to begin with.
-
LOL Maddow blog
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.static.newsvine.com%2Fservista%2Fimagesizer%3Ffile%3Dsteve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&hash=c3951a05fa045d1de2212d03af42de24f4a3f485)
(https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_27012012_Budget_Deficit_of_the_United_States_Government_n.jpg)
You do realize that the budget deficit is different than the national debt?
-
LOL Maddow blog
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.static.newsvine.com%2Fservista%2Fimagesizer%3Ffile%3Dsteve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&hash=c3951a05fa045d1de2212d03af42de24f4a3f485)
(https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_27012012_Budget_Deficit_of_the_United_States_Government_n.jpg)
You do realize that the budget deficit is different than the national debt?
Yes. Why do you ask?
-
You seem to be insinuating that these graphs are a positive for the country.
-
Can we get felix back in here to confirm that Hans got Blix'd by the US from re-entering Iraq to carry out inspections that may well have prevented us going to war?
-
Sorry, KK. Before my time and oddly no one wants to talk about it. But brew some coffee and enjoy the Sunday pages the next few weeks.
-
Sorry, KK. Before my time and oddly no one wants to talk about it. But brew some coffee and enjoy the Sunday pages the next few weeks.
Ok. Well I read probably read tens of thousands of pages on the Iraq War and I am very confident that is what happened so until someone posts something contrary to that, my point stands. Sorry K-S-U Wildcats! so far this has trumped your :lol: retort.
-
You seem to be insinuating that these graphs are a positive for the country.
The budget deficit has been decreasing over the past few years. If the budget deficit continues to decrease, we might eventually reach a budget surplus. In order to reduce the national debt, we must first balance the budget. In case you might have forgot, the last time we had a budget surplus was under President Clinton:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forigin.factcheck.org%2FImages%2Fimage%2FFederalDeficit%281%29.jpg&hash=de1046faddf4e9a2fb3f2661fc922a79cd8ffb6b)
-
We've basically been bombing brown ppl since the day bill left office. That crap gets expensive.
-
We've basically been bombing brown ppl since the day bill left office. That crap gets expensive.
Bill bombed Browns too, CNS
-
We've basically been bombing brown ppl since the day bill left office. That crap gets expensive.
Bill bombed Browns too, CNS
What I am saying is that we have been spending a bunch since Bill because we have basically been at war non stop since.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
Didn't bill bomb some whites too? #billsnotaracist
-
During Clinton's 2nd term the National Debt increased 401 Billion (105th and 106th Congress). That was down from the $1.018 Trillion dollar increase in the national debt from his first term.
The 105th Congress was controlled by Republicans. The 106th Congress was controlled by Republicans and the 104th Congress was controlled by Republicans.
The National Debt increased every year that Clinton was in office. The smallest increase in the National Debt was Federal FY 2000, where the national Debt "only" increased $17.91 Billion. FY 2000 being the outlier, every other year the National Debt increased from $113 to $283 Billion.
The claim of a "surplus" was borne out of a reduction in the public portion of the National Debt. The Intra-Governmental portion of the National Debt increased every single year during the so called "surplus". These were the IOU's being tossed into the "lock boxes" that at some point had/have to be paid.
The Social Security Administration (for example) is legally required to take all surpluses and purchase Gov't Securities.
So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999 Video: CSPAN
How many times do we have to go through this?
Yes, Bill bombed the Serbs on behalf of Iranian proxy the KLA.
-
Bombing whites, man that bill was a big ol' stud with brass rough ridin' balls.
-
Bombing whites, man that bill was a big ol' stud with brass rough ridin' balls.
Whites aligned with Russia. Now the Balkanized region aligns itself with NATO. PNAC and the Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard begins its march to control Central Asia. At home, it was sold as stopping ethnic cleansing.
But hey, speaking of Obamabot War Hawk Beems' "they've been killing each other for years" . . . They'd been killing each other for centuries in the Balkans, the Croats marched the Serbs off to death camps by aligning themselves with Hitler during WWII (just one of many occurrences).
-
If you really think about it, if we start bombing in Syria on behalf of AQ, it won't be the first time.
One of the only good results of the bombing of Serbia was an increased awareness of Islamic terrorism in the Balkans. Albania was soon implicated. On 4 May 1999, the Washington Times reported, citing new reports from US intelligence and Jane’s Defense Review, that the town of Tropoje, Albania was a"common staging area" for Bin Laden’s and the KLA’s forces, and thus "a center for Islamic terrorists." US intelligence also acknowledged that Bin Ladin’s al-Qaeda had "both trained and financially supported" the Albanians, and that the Kosovo border had been infiltrated by Bosnian, Chechen and Afghan mujaheedin, in "…crossings (which) originated in neighboring Albania and, according to the reports, included parties of up to 50 men." The Jane’s report added that "…documents found last year on the body of a KLA member showed that he had escorted several volunteers into Kosovo, including more than a dozen Saudi Arabians. Each volunteer carried a passport identifying him as a Macedonian Albanian."
A combination of chaos and poverty in Albania paved the way for Bin Laden to move in. The Times of London quoted Fatos Klosi, the head of the Albanian intelligence service, who said that bin Laden sent terrorists to Kosovo. Using the front of funding a "humanitarian agency," bin Laden muscled into Albania as far back as 1994.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html
-
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
Don't believe anything Dax says. He's just regurgitating a bunch of teabagger nonsense from sources like the Drudge Report. Dude is a total hack.
-
Jon Stewart knocks it out of the park (as usual):
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-12-2013-billy-crystal (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-12-2013-billy-crystal)
-
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.fizz billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.fizz billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those fizz years.
Don't believe anything Dax says. He's just regurgitating a bunch of teabagger nonsense from sources like the Drudge Report. Dude is a total hack.
aka as the Federal Government.
Tell me what year the National Debt did not increase Beems.
I am laughing how your fact check guy just kind of brushes right over the absolute fact that the gov't tossed billions of dollars of IOU's into the so called "lock boxes".
You just regurgitate the DNC/left blogosphere talking points.
"The debt was by no means erased" :lol: No $hit :lol:
-
In Federal FY 2000 the Gov't borrowed $246.5 Billion in surpluses from the various trust funds, by law that was all "invested" in U.S. Gov't securities to "balance" the budget, that $246.5 Billion has to be paid back to the trust funds at some point in the future . . . with interest.
None-the-less, the national debt still increased in Federal FY 2000 by nearly $18 billion dollars.
Social Security is only one of 8 "trust funds" that the gov't takes all their respective surpluses from and "invests" them in Federal Gov't Securities . . . that have to be paid back down the line.
-
This is why you're a right wing hack, 'Pad. You complain about the national debt, and then you can't even give Clinton credit for balancing the budget and achieving the largest budget surplus in US history. No, the entire national debt wasn't paid down, but some of the surplus was used to pay off some of it. The fact that you can't even recognize this fact speaks volumes about how hyper-partisan you are.
-
This is why you're a right wing hack, 'Pad. You complain about the national debt, and then you can't even give Clinton credit for balancing the budget and achieving the largest budget surplus in US history. No, the entire national debt wasn't paid down, but some of the surplus was used to pay off some of it. The fact that you can't even recognize this speaks to your hyper-partisan nature.
When the budget has to be "balanced" with borrowing it's just fun and games, when not one penny of the national debt was paid down, and it in fact increased every single year under the Clinton administration it's just a bunch of hype so Left wing blogs and people like you can wax your johnson. It means nothing at the end, even more dangerous. the money was borrowed (and still is) from TRUST funds that support people on fixed incomes etc. etc.. Open up the lockboxes and all you see is IOU's that had to be paid for by all us and for generations to come.
That's a fantasy budget surplus not grounded in any form of reality.
-
This is why you're a right wing hack, 'Pad. You complain about the national debt, and then you can't even give Clinton credit for balancing the budget and achieving the largest budget surplus in US history. No, the entire national debt wasn't paid down, but some of the surplus was used to pay off some of it. The fact that you can't even recognize this speaks to your hyper-partisan nature.
When the budget has to be "balanced" with borrowing it's just fun and games, when not one penny of the national debt was paid down, and it in fact increased every single year under the Clinton administration it's just a bunch of hype so Left wing blogs and people like you can wax your johnson. It means nothing at the end, even more dangerous. the money was borrowed (and still is) from TRUST funds that support people on fixed incomes etc. etc.. Open up the lockboxes and all you see is IOU's that had to be paid for by all us and for generations to come.
That's a fantasy budget surplus not grounded in any form of reality.
When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. Just another example of why you're a joke and why no one should take anything you say seriously.
-
Good grief, dax. Clinton balanced the budget. That has nothing to do with how ridiculous the deficit has been every year under Obama. Sure, 2009 was Bush's budget, but Obama has had 4 years since then to fix it, and while it is getting better incrementally, it's just not enough.
-
This is why you're a right wing hack, 'Pad. You complain about the national debt, and then you can't even give Clinton credit for balancing the budget and achieving the largest budget surplus in US history. No, the entire national debt wasn't paid down, but some of the surplus was used to pay off some of it. The fact that you can't even recognize this speaks to your hyper-partisan nature.
When the budget has to be "balanced" with borrowing it's just fun and games, when not one penny of the national debt was paid down, and it in fact increased every single year under the Clinton administration it's just a bunch of hype so Left wing blogs and people like you can wax your johnson. It means nothing at the end, even more dangerous. the money was borrowed (and still is) from TRUST funds that support people on fixed incomes etc. etc.. Open up the lockboxes and all you see is IOU's that had to be paid for by all us and for generations to come.
That's a fantasy budget surplus not grounded in any form of reality.
When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. Just another example of why you're a joke and why no one should take anything you say seriously.
Listen to your logic, we had a surplus, but we still owed more money. Hell, the Gov't didn't even use all the money they borrowed (with interest) from the trust funds in FY 2000. Had they used ALL the money they BORROWED from the Trust Funds then and only then could you say they had (as only our gov't could say it) a "balanced" budget. But they didn't use all the money they BORROWED via intergovernmental lending to pay down the public portion of the National Debt, thus, the national debt still increased in FY 2000.
The gov't is reporting BORROWED money as Income.
-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/)
Now let's look at Clinton's tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton's stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough.
So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that "we paid down the debt for four years," though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion -- which was equal to about fizz percent of the existing public debt in 1997.
But what about gross federal debt? On this score, NewsBusters is correct: In each fiscal year from 1993 to 2001, the gross federal debt increased, because the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit.
So by one of these measures, Clinton is correct, and by another, he's wrong.
"The discrepancy between the two concepts of federal debt in these years occurred because of program surpluses and the rapid growth of reserves held by the various trust fund accounts, such as Social Security," said Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless. Social Security surpluses don't go into a "lock box" but are instead invested in government bonds; the proceeds of these purchases go into the general treasury, and when the bonds mature, the treasury is obligated to pay back the Social Security trust both principal and interest.
"The growth of these surpluses meant the rest of the federal government did not have to issue as much debt to the public," Burtless said. "In fact, the federal government paid off more of its old debt than it issued new debt to the public. Therefore, net federal debt held by the public declined."
So, is there any reason to prefer any single measurement? On this question, we couldn't find a clear consensus.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a 2009 report that government-held debt, such as the Social Security trust fund, "has no direct, immediate impact on the economy. Instead, it simply represents credits to the various government accounts that can be redeemed as necessary to authorize payments for benefits or other expenses." By contrast, CBO wrote, "long-term projections of federal debt held by the public, measured relative to the size of the economy, provide useful yardsticks for assessing the sustainability of fiscal policies."
James Horney, of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that most key studies of the debt in recent years have focused on public debt. Horney gets support from a leading conservative, Dan Mitchell of the libertarian Cato Institute. Public debt, Mitchell said, "is the key variable since it measures the amount of money the government is draining from private capital markets, or adding, in the case of surpluses. Government spending grew very slowly during the Clinton years, just 2.fizz percent annually between 1994 and 1998. This was a very good accomplishment, and Bill Clinton, and the GOP Congress, should be proud. If we could do the same thing now, we could balance the budget in about buzz years and make all the tax cuts permanent."
Any way you spin it, Clinton is the last President to achieve a budget surplus and pay off a portion of the national debt. Like Mitchell points out, if we had just stuck with Clinton's policies, we'd probably be pretty close to paying off the national debt by this point.
-
Clinton can say they paid down debt all he wants, here's reality:
In Federal FY 2000 the Public Portion of the National Debt Decreased by $230.8 Billion to $fizz.405 Trillion. The Intergovernmental Portion of the National Debt increased by $248.78 Billion to $2.68 Trillion. Making for an increase of the National Debt of $17.fizz Billion.
The same year, the Federal Gov't borrowed $245 Billion dollars from the various trust funds and then called it income.
Nice edit there Beems.
Good luck with the Governmental accounting that calls borrowing "income" BTW.
-
Who was the last Republican President to balance the budget, 'Pad?
-
Who was the last Republican President to balance the budget, 'Pad?
LOL, what difference does that make?
Particularly in light of the fact that our government says that borrowed money is "income".
If you're going to get all DNC talking point on me (per usual) what party controlled Congress during the time of this "surplus" Beems?
-
Nice tapout. I'll ask again: who was the last Republican president to balance the budget?
-
I don't know.
But once again, look at your logic "we balanced the budget . . . but we still owe more money"
"we borrowed $245 Billion Dollars and we're going to call that income"
You just can't get by that idiocy Beems, sorry dude.
So which party controlled the nations "purse strings" during the last 6 year of the Clinton Administration? I mean, give credit where credit is due if you're going to claim a mythical "balanced budget".
-
Your attitude is typical of many Americans these days, 'Pad. If we can't solve everything all at once, why bother? That kind of mentality is counter productive. Rome wasn't built in a day. Clinton's fiscal policy had us on track to balance the national deficit within a decade or so. And yes, Clinton worked with Republicans and compromised with them on a number of issues, including government spending. I give both Clinton and conservatives credit for working together and getting things done. Personally, I'd love to see more of it with the current administration.
-
Your attitude is typical of many Americans these days, 'Pad. If we can't solve everything all at once, why bother? That kind of mentality is counter productive. Rome wasn't built in a day. Clinton's fiscal policy had us on track to balance the national deficit within a decade or so. And yes, Clinton worked with Republicans and compromised with them on a number of issues, including government spending. I give both Clinton and conservatives credit for working together and getting things done. Personally, I'd love to see more of it with the current administration.
What a load of $hit in regards to your "why bother", I just don't live in fantasy land. More long term debt obligations created out of surpluses essentially stolen out of so called "trust funds" primarily set aside to support old people on fixed incomes etc. etc. That is borrowed, then with a wave of a magic wand called "income" so a bunch of beltway boys and girls can run around and try and claim they "balanced" the budget and in fact had a "surplus".
I give Clinton credit for paying down the public debt during the short term, sadly they tossed around $361 Billion more in IOU's into the "lock boxes" over and above the public debt reduction. $361 Billion that still has to be paid back in the future, with interest, in trust funds that primarily support people with no other source of income.
So if that makes you feel good, and makes you feel like something was actually be accomplished in terms of the U.S. long term debt obligations so be it. But at the end of the day, the gov't owed $1.4 trillion more after the Clinton, than before and that's with .com bubble (and subsequent painful burst).
-
Now back to Syria regime change.
Welp, looks like Assad is saying that he'll hand over his WMD's when the US quits arming the rebels . . . just as direct U.S. aid (as far as we know) just started rolling. Meanwhile the administration is :crossfingers: about whether those weapons and systems end up in the hands of AQ elements.
-
Now back to Syria regime change.
Welp, looks like Assad is saying that he'll hand over his WMD's when the US quits arming the rebels . . . just as direct U.S. aid (as far as we know) just started rolling. Meanwhile the administration is :crossfingers: about whether those weapons and systems end up in the hands of AQ elements.
Yeah, I'm with you on arming the rebels. It's a bad idea, and it's only going to end up hurting Americans in the long run. I wish we'd just back off and let Russia deal with this mess.
-
and the winner by 3rd round TKO, OregonSmock.
-
LOL @ Ell.
Welp, here's to more war kids.
-
Guys, seriously.
GWB >>>> Obama. This is not even arguable, just stop.
You can have a budget "surplus" and still increase the deficit (see Clinton's surplus year). This is not arguable either.
Anyone else think its funny that the admin is taking the position they decided not to bomb syria, as if it were a choice after Putin saved the day? Syria and Russia are puppet mastering b.o., and it is just sad and pathetic for all us 'mericans.
-
Sniff sniff... I smell Fox News talking points.
-
Sniff sniff... I smell Fox News talking points.
Looking forward to you "Guys, Obama sucks" thread, you rough ridin' loser.
-
I love how no educated view of the Syria situation gives as much credit to Putin as the radical right does.
-
I love how no educated view of the Syria situation gives as much credit to Obama as the mentally handicapped libtard does.
Seriously, what decision did Obama make that wasn't made for him?
-
I love how no educated view of the Syria situation gives as much credit to Obama as the mentally handicapped libtard does.
Seriously, what decision did Obama make that wasn't made for him?
I'm sorry I can hear you over the sound of Obama rubbing his nuts all over your face.
I mean its not like one remark didn't solve Obamas issue with the hypocrite cowards in congress, remove Syria's biggest deterrent, neuter Russia's ENTIRE position on Syria, and give him the out of a diplomatic solution through negotiations with Russia without involving Syria pretty much at all.
-
So you agree Putin did it all, great
-
Obama gets Putin and Russia to help the US with Syria, and ultimately avert war:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24100296 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24100296)
The US-Russia deal on Syria's chemical weapons is a "victory" that averts war, a Syrian minister says.
The framework document says Syria must provide full details of its stockpile within a week - with the chemical arsenal eliminated by mid-2014.
If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution with the use of force as a last resort.
The US had threatened to attack Syria which it blames for a chemical attack in August which killed hundreds.
President Bashar al-Assad's government denies the allegations and has accused the rebels of carrying out the attack.
Syria recently agreed to join the global Chemical Weapons Convention, and the UN said it would come under the treaty from 14 October.
The framework deal was announced on Saturday after three days of talks in Geneva by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry.
"We welcome the agreement," Syrian Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar told Russian news agency Ria Novosti, giving his country's first reaction.
"On the one hand, it helps Syria come out of the crisis and, on the other, it helps avoid the war against Syria depriving those who wanted to launch it of arguments to do so," Mr Haidar said.
"It's a victory for Syria achieved thanks to our Russian friends."
China, France, the UK, the UN, the Arab League and Nato have all expressed satisfaction at the agreement.
On Saturday, US President Barack Obama said in a statement that the deal was an "important step" but urged Syria to "live up to its public commitments".
"If diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act," he said. The Pentagon said the US military was still in position for military strikes.
In an interview with the ABC network on Sunday, Mr Obama confirmed that he had exchanged letters about Syria with newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
In an allusion to the dispute between Iran and the West over Iran's nuclear programme, Mr Obama said: "What they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically."
"My view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort… you can strike a deal," Mr Obama added.
French President Francois Hollande also said on Sunday that the military option should remain on the table.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi87.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk160%2FBunnyWurb%2Fgiffy%25203%2Fobama-cnn-dance.gif&hash=8d21817337a4dfb54334d45b4b4393d1858ea0bf)
-
Bmwjhawk agrees as well. :Woot:
-
So you agree Putin did it all, great
God I love it when you expose yourself like this.
-
Hey Fake, who's best interests, goals, or agendas were accomplished here? And who is doing the bitch work?
-
Obama's military threat bluffed Putin into taking action:
Mr Netanyahu said: "What the past few days have shown is something that I have been saying for quite some time, that if diplomacy has any chance to work, it must be coupled with a credible military threat."
No money spent, not a single bomb dropped, not a single American soldier killed. War averted. Way to go, 'merica!
:Woot:
-
The people trying to survive in Syria want to know when this war is going to get averted.
Just because the U.S. isn't dropping guided munitions and pumping cruise missile into Syria doesn't mean war has been "averted", in fact, the U.S. is doing everything it can to fuel the war short of direct intervention.
-
Obama's military threat bluffed Putin into taking action:
Mr Netanyahu said: "What the past few days have shown is something that I have been saying for quite some time, that if diplomacy has any chance to work, it must be coupled with a credible military threat."
No money spent, not a single bomb dropped, not a single American soldier killed. War averted. Way to go, 'merica!
:Woot:
Oh, I see, we're re-writing the story and editing stuff out. Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?
FWIW, I like this "Obama Forrest gumped his way to the best possible solution" version.
-
The people trying to survive in Syria want to know when this war is going to get averted.
Just because the U.S. isn't dropping guided munitions and pumping cruise missile into Syria doesn't mean war has been "averted", in fact, the U.S. is doing everything it can to fuel the war short of direct intervention.
Don't worry, Dax..
Obama stupided it out so Putin, Assad and the UN get it all resolved, which was his plan all along as evidenced by his secretary of states repeated gaffes, his diligent and failed attempt to garner public support to bomb Syria and his pathetic attempt to try and distinguish Syria from Iraq. Just brilliant politicking, I can't see anything wrong going on here. Piece in the middle east achieved.
-
The people trying to survive in Syria want to know when this war is going to get averted.
Just because the U.S. isn't dropping guided munitions and pumping cruise missile into Syria doesn't mean war has been "averted", in fact, the U.S. is doing everything it can to fuel the war short of direct intervention.
Dax, what should happen in Syria? Serious question. I don't really follow it. Should the international community or the US have any role or do we just let it play out?
-
The people trying to survive in Syria want to know when this war is going to get averted.
Just because the U.S. isn't dropping guided munitions and pumping cruise missile into Syria doesn't mean war has been "averted", in fact, the U.S. is doing everything it can to fuel the war short of direct intervention.
Dax, what should happen in Syria? Serious question. I don't really follow it. Should the international community or the US have any role or do we just let it play out?
Hard to say now, but you gotta figure that if the so called "freedom fighters" are 2.5 years into this, and they appear to still be a long way from toppling the regime, that this thing probably isn't going to happen without a serious ratcheting up of hostilities. Plus you've got Saudi Arabia and Turkey and others supporting the really, really bad guys IMO.
-
The people trying to survive in Syria want to know when this war is going to get averted.
Just because the U.S. isn't dropping guided munitions and pumping cruise missile into Syria doesn't mean war has been "averted", in fact, the U.S. is doing everything it can to fuel the war short of direct intervention.
Dax, what should happen in Syria? Serious question. I don't really follow it. Should the international community or the US have any role or do we just let it play out?
According to Obama a limited military strike should be threatened which will cause Putin to make fun of the US and cut a "genuine" deal with Syria and end any threat of US involvement in Syria forever. Chemical Weapon usage was just window dressing for lib war hawks, to be erased from memory now that the lib war doves have their incredulous story worked out.
Edna, please confirm this is correct
-
The people trying to survive in Syria want to know when this war is going to get averted.
Just because the U.S. isn't dropping guided munitions and pumping cruise missile into Syria doesn't mean war has been "averted", in fact, the U.S. is doing everything it can to fuel the war short of direct intervention.
Don't worry, Dax..
Obama stupided it out so Putin, Assad and the UN get it all resolved, which was his plan all along as evidenced by his secretary of states repeated gaffes, his diligent and failed attempt to garner public support to bomb Syria and his pathetic attempt to try and distinguish Syria from Iraq. Just brilliant politicking, I can't see anything wrong going on here. Piece in the middle east achieved.
So bubbling, gaffing, failures have been able to accomplish almost all their goals (in this micro issue) without going to war, what does that say for Russia's foreign policy team?
-
This reminds me of when Forrest gump made all that money on some fruit company called "apple" and Edna was calling him the next Peter lynch.
-
This reminds me of when Forrest gump made all that money on some fruit company called "apple" and Edna was calling him the next Peter lynch.
this reminds me of that movie where closet racist neo cons did everything to obstruct the first black president agenda and the president repeatedly dragged his nuts all over the neo cons' hopes and dreams to regress this country to pre 1929.
-
This reminds me of when Forrest gump made all that money on some fruit company called "apple" and Edna was calling him the next Peter lynch.
this reminds me of that movie where closet racist neo cons did everything to obstruct the first black president agenda and the president repeatedly dragged his nuts all over the neo cons' hopes and dreams to regress this country to pre 1929.
How many times is the race card going to get dropped in this thread??
This administration is sending weapons to the "rebels" in Syria, this president signed an executive order telling the CIA to assist in the overthrow of the Assad regime 2 years ago. This administration is literally doing :crossfingers: this in hopes the weapons they're sending don't end up in the hands of AQ elements and theocratic dictatorships that the United States props up in the Middle East are sending weapons (like with the assistance of the CIA) to hardcore Islamist "freedom fighters". The only reason the U.S. isn't already bombing Syria is because this administration couldn't gin up enough support to do so.
Yet, the best you got is to toss out the race card . . . again??
-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/168572849/20130915-ISTeams-Ghouta-Rreport
The International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights has put out their own report about the alleged Syrian Gov't Chemical Attack and they have serious doubts.
Most alarming is their claim that kidnapped Alawite children were identified in the videos of the gas attack victims. They're also claiming that much of the video and pictures from the victims is staged and that the entire situation needs to be investigated.
-
This reminds me of when Forrest gump made all that money on some fruit company called "apple" and Edna was calling him the next Peter lynch.
this reminds me of that movie where closet racist neo cons did everything to obstruct the first black president agenda and the president repeatedly dragged his nuts all over the neo cons' hopes and dreams to regress this country to pre 1929.
How many times is the race card going to get dropped in this thread??
This administration is sending weapons to the "rebels" in Syria, this president signed an executive order telling the CIA to assist in the overthrow of the Assad regime 2 years ago. This administration is literally doing :crossfingers: this in hopes the weapons they're sending don't end up in the hands of AQ elements and theocratic dictatorships that the United States props up in the Middle East are sending weapons (like with the assistance of the CIA) to hardcore Islamist "freedom fighters". The only reason the U.S. isn't already bombing Syria is because this administration couldn't gin up enough support to do so.
Yet, the best you got is to toss out the race card . . . again??
The issue is that somehow, now we have passed this magical red line for neo cons like Fake, that suddenly the US is being too much of an interventionist. Note how there is not direct attempt to refute how Obama's team lucked out on this and solved the majority of their micro issues with Syria. At a certain point we have to step back from the rhetoric and see what is being said and when it started. The disparagement of Obama started for a reason from certain sectors and its continued for 5+ years for certain reasons. Maybe if he had the executive board from Halliburton making his war plans it would go over better for people like Fake.
And as far as the freedom fighters issue, you should really look into who is fighting what, where. Its absolutely absurd to say we are arming Al Nursra. Yes I'd imagine the Saudis and Quartaries are, but not us, not through us, or by the direction of us. Now I'd probably go with a theory that we are letting them live because they are sapping the strength of the regime, but that only goes so far.
-
Dax still doesn't understand that without a credible military threat, there would have never been a diplomatic resolution. Haters gon' hate.
-
Edna, if you agree Obama Forrest gumped his way through this (I think you do, your posts are very hard to comprehend) then I agree with you.
-
Edna, if you agree Obama Forrest gumped his way through this (I think you do, your posts are very hard to comprehend) then I agree with you.
Dude if you say Obama gumped this, how can you legitimately give any credit to Russia's foreign policy team for the way the handle it? Everything about this 'settlement' has worked against Russia's long term narrative.
-
also the UN report is being leaked/coming out that 350 ltrs of Sarin were used via surface to surface missiles (labeled with coptic lettering). So pretty much 100% regime use.
-
Dax still doesn't understand that without a credible military threat, there would have never been a diplomatic resolution. Haters gon' hate.
How can you have a diplomatic "resolution" when you don't even try to have one? In addition, so far there's been no resolution of the actual issue at hand.
-
also the UN report is being leaked/coming out that 350 ltrs of Sarin were used via surface to surface missiles (labeled with coptic lettering). So pretty much 100% regime use.
You do understand how easy it would be to stage that for UN inspectors don't you? No, you probably don't.
-
Still waiting for those "U.S.-NATO missiles/bombs" to drop on Syria. Any day now, right, 'Pad?
:ROFL:
-
Still waiting for those "U.S.-NATO missiles/bombs" to drop on Syria. Any day now, right, 'Pad?
:ROFL:
What's even more :lol: is that you keep calling the situation "resolved".
-
Edna, if you agree Obama Forrest gumped his way through this (I think you do, your posts are very hard to comprehend) then I agree with you.
Dude if you say Obama gumped this, how can you legitimately give any credit to Russia's foreign policy team for the way the handle it? Everything about this 'settlement' has worked against Russia's long term narrative.
This is where you lose me. Are we to believe Russia is shooting straight on this one? You seem to believe chemical weapons were actually used, what about all that? Its like you redefined the objective to fit your narrative.
-
The U.S. and Russia can't even agree on where the Chemical weapons are, and who actually controls the various stockpiles.
But it's all RESOLVED people!!
Lebanese media sources are claiming some have already been moved (back) to Iraq.
-
Still waiting for those "U.S.-NATO missiles/bombs" to drop on Syria. Any day now, right, 'Pad?
:ROFL:
What's even more :lol: is that you keep calling the situation "resolved".
The chemical weapons situation is pretty much resolved, and US military intervention is looking less and less likely. In typical anti-Obama fashion, though, you remain outraged at any and everything.
-
Still waiting for those "U.S.-NATO missiles/bombs" to drop on Syria. Any day now, right, 'Pad?
:ROFL:
What's even more :lol: is that you keep calling the situation "resolved".
The chemical weapons situation is pretty much resolved, and US military intervention is looking less and less likely. In typical anti-Obama fashion, though, you remain outraged at any and everything.
It's pretty much resolved people!! But nothing has actually happened yet!!
So resolved that the two parties engaged in the resolution can't even agree on what's where and who has what, let alone how they're going to get it and when exactly it's going to happen. But it's resolved!!
The war is over!! Pay no mind to the people who are still dying, the hundreds of thousands of refugees and the flow of weapons from the United States and U.S. proxies to the "freedom fighters" rife with Islamic Extremists!!
-
:lol:
-
Beems Chamberlain taps out again.
Sad
-
Edna, if you agree Obama Forrest gumped his way through this (I think you do, your posts are very hard to comprehend) then I agree with you.
Dude if you say Obama gumped this, how can you legitimately give any credit to Russia's foreign policy team for the way the handle it? Everything about this 'settlement' has worked against Russia's long term narrative.
This is where you lose me. Are we to believe Russia is shooting straight on this one? You seem to believe chemical weapons were actually used, what about all that? Its like you redefined the objective to fit your narrative.
No report or solid intelligence has said WMDs were not used. Everyone at this point agrees they were. Now the issue is who used them. The fact is these were not home made munitions, they were not low tech delivery vehicles, and only one side is rocking the coptic instruction sheets.
And I've never attempted to redefine objectives. I believe WMD use is a red line for the international community to act, just as it was in the 80s with Iran/Iraq or the 90s with Iraq/Krud, just as it has been for nearly 100 years. I also believe we were in bed too long with Assad and we should have worked to support the secular forces in Syria long before the conflict grew large enough to attract the extremists.
-
Is agreed surrender of chemical weapons appropriate recource for crossing the "red line"? Do we really think Russia is going to come through? Turkey blew up a Syrian coptor today, does this derail anything?
From where Assad is sitting, he just used chemical weapons without any consequence. Whose objective does this accomplish?
BMW, List of things Obama resolved:
Debt Ceiling
National Deficit
Unemployment
Affordable healthcare
Gas Prices
Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons
Morsi
Etc. Etc.
His resolutions are disastrous
-
In my world I'd love to see the regime surrender their weapons and Assad's bro, who is in charge of the chem unit, should be tried in ICC since there is no functioning impartial body in the nation which can give a fair trial. I don't think we'll see Russia come through, which is why we need the UN to step up and add to the handful of cases where it has actually fulfilled their mandate to regulate international peace. We've already seen the Russian foreign minister back off the deal blaming Kerry for 'not reading' it.
The downing of the helicopter really doesn't change anything IMO. They've had numerous run-ins with Turkey ranging from pot shots across the border to artillery exchanges.
And we can start another thread about Obama's accomplishments because that is too deep to get into here, especially considering the radical right's only objective this term is to deny any part of the Obama agenda, and not to work for this country.
-
Funny what governments do to preserve themselves in the face of Superpower Hegemony.
The United States was and is prepared to blow up the entire world to "preserve" itself.
-
On assertion for how the "rebels" couldn't have engaged in chemical attacks in Syria is that they don't know how to handle chemical weapons.
Welp
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/09/sources-defense-contractors-training-syrian-rebels-in-chemical-weapons/
-
Another assertion that the "rebels" couldn't have been engaged in chemical attacks in Syria is that the so called weapons had Russian markings on them and Russia is not a supplier of weapons to the Rebels.
The simple fact is, the CIA (and others) are arming the "Rebels" with all matter of Russian styled weapons, and what's lost in the shuffle is the huge influx of outsiders (an invasion) from places like Libya and specifically from areas like Benghazi, where it was highly likely the CIA was operating an arms running campaign moving Russian (Yugoslavian) weapons confiscated from the Libyan Army weapons stockpiles to Syria (along with the 'rebels', of which strong AQ/Radical Islamist exist).
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F09%2FPutinObama.jpg&hash=db9ea1cea074f2c5ccf7c80c803eb325d0772241)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2F1155cbCOMIC-putin-columnist.jpg&hash=94187f459604c9f0a5c5076dc2bf1ea6e61b140f)
-
That was quite funny, I enjoyed that.
But has Reuben ever done any of his stuff that was critical of Obama? At least Tom Tomorrow could roll out some scathing ones on the left from time to time.
-
That was quite funny, I enjoyed that.
But has Reuben ever done any of his stuff that was critical of Obama? At least Tom Tomorrow could roll out some scathing ones on the left from time to time.
I have a feeling Ruben is a radical leftist.
-
That was quite funny, I enjoyed that.
But has Reuben ever done any of his stuff that was critical of Obama? At least Tom Tomorrow could roll out some scathing ones on the left from time to time.
yes, I've posted many of them
-
That was quite funny, I enjoyed that.
But has Reuben ever done any of his stuff that was critical of Obama? At least Tom Tomorrow could roll out some scathing ones on the left from time to time.
example
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fi%2Fuser%2F331054%2F1090ckSMALL-news---obama-evolution.png&hash=3316e001691885eb7c3fc26683223bdf91c26ee0)
-
Funny, but pretty deflective.
Tomorrow is better on the rare occassion he actually takes on the left.
-
Funny, but pretty deflective.
Tomorrow is better on the rare occassion he actually takes on the left.
I guess you have to be a moderate to see it the way I do
-
Funny, but pretty deflective.
Tomorrow is better on the rare occassion he actually takes on the left.
I guess you have to be a moderate to see it the way I do
:lol:
-
Funny, but pretty deflective.
Tomorrow is better on the rare occassion he actually takes on the left.
I guess you have to be a moderate to see it the way I do
:lol:
Don't laugh at my fellow moderate friend, dax.
-
The Levant Basin with an estimated 122 trillion cubic tons of gas and 1.8 billion barrels of oil. Just off the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Countries can explore and exploit natural resources up to 200 miles off their coast.
But it's about "Freedom" Dax.
Meanwhile the infiltration of hired mercs from NATO aligned former Eastern Bloc countries continues (but hey, there's no boots on the ground, right?) lead by private U.S. secruity companies (which have thrived under the current administration).
-
But, but, it's about Democracy and Freedom!!
http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-losing-out-huge-reserves-oil-natural-gas-eastern-mediterranean-sea-while-cyprus-israel-get
-
in 10 of the 11 instances where the word "freedom" was used in this thread it was posted by sonofdaxjones.
-
Because that's how the latest example of U.S. Hegemony is being sold to the American Public . . . again.
-
Because that's how the latest example of U.S. Hegemony is being sold to the American Public . . . again.
i thought chemical weapons were the issue. :dunno:
-
Because that's how the latest example of U.S. Hegemony is being sold to the American Public . . . again.
i thought chemical weapons were the issue. :dunno:
Not really.
-
Because that's how the latest example of U.S. Hegemony is being sold to the American Public . . . again.
i thought chemical weapons were the issue. :dunno:
Not really.
well you would know! you haven't been wrong in this thread yet!
-
Because that's how the latest example of U.S. Hegemony is being sold to the American Public . . . again.
i thought chemical weapons were the issue. :dunno:
Not really.
I thought we were going to bomb them in 15-25 days?
-
That was def going to be the case, but then Syria signed a decent looking recruit for the 2014 season and now we are back to wait and see, evidently.
-
The original post was a poll fellas.