# War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?



## paulitician

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.


----------



## Katzndogz

A war to support obama's lies?  No.


----------



## Little-Acorn




----------



## syrenn

meh.... i have no problem with them killing each other off. Less of them to hate us.


----------



## High_Gravity

No.


----------



## Vox

No way !


----------



## shintao

The evidence isn't in yet from the UN. So no war.

Second, we don't need to be there with US troops or Ambassadors, etc. So no, against any war or even being there sticking our foolish nose in OPBs.


----------



## kiwiman127

I voted No!  I was also against going into Iraq for the same reasons.


----------



## Wyatt earp

All it looks like the US will do is launch $50~$100 million worth of Tomahawk missles at them, it looks like they warned them and it will prolly be on Thursday. Big deal.


----------



## TNHarley

hell no!
and besides, who would we go after? we dont know who released the chemicals. they are BOTH enemies.. well Americas, not obamas


----------



## High_Gravity

If someone says yes they better explain themselves.


----------



## RDD_1210

Definitely don't need to be the world policeman, yet again. Once our country is perfect then we can consider meddling in another nations affairs. Not before then.


----------



## Brain357

There would be no way to win.  No!


----------



## Vox

what an amazing bipartisanship on the board


----------



## Wyatt earp

High_Gravity said:


> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.



I say yes Geneva Protocol
Geneva Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you dont you will have countrys using chemical weapons again. WW1 was enough.


----------



## Mr Natural

No.


----------



## Caroljo

I do not support it.  But I'm afraid it's going to happen.  Just saw on Yahoo that Obama will probably go ahead with this WITHOUT UN or Congressional support.  What a moron!

Libs bitched about Bush going into Iraq saying Iraq was no threat to the US.  
There better not be any that will support Obama with this....there's no difference!


----------



## Gracie

High_Gravity said:


> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.



Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children". And mean ol Gracie said tough shit about the children. Kids are dying all over the world, sadly.


----------



## tinydancer

I can't figure for the life of me why he hates Assad this much.

This is beyond strange. He and Cameron are really over the top on trying to kill him.


----------



## tinydancer

I think it's an honest question. 

Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?


----------



## Gracie

Cameron??


----------



## aaronleland

Gracie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children". And mean ol Gracie said tough shit about the children. Kids are dying all over the world, sadly.
Click to expand...


Let's bomb children... FOR THE CHILDREN!!!


----------



## High_Gravity

Gracie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children". And mean ol Gracie said tough shit about the children. Kids are dying all over the world, sadly.
Click to expand...


Children are being gunned down and killed right here on our city streets too.


----------



## High_Gravity

tinydancer said:


> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?



Has anyone even came out and said it? I mean I am sure they want the man gone but I think this has become about alot more than 1 man now.


----------



## High_Gravity

Wow this is the most lop sided poll ever!


----------



## RandallFlagg

I said NO in Iraq. I said NO in Afghanistan and I'm sayin NO in Syria. We are dangerously close to taking a step toward that cliff that we can't back away from.

Russia, China and Iran has warned us to "stay out of it". 

Who are we actually supporting? The bad guys or the bad guys? Hell, if we have to go to war to protect ourselves, then so be it. But going to war to support Al Queada terrorists?


No. No. No.


I have ZERO respect for that pecker-head in the White House, but in this case I would sy "Mr President, for ONCE in your life, THINK about what you are about to do".


----------



## Borillar

Not only no, but fuck no!  There is nothing to be gained by military adventurism in Syria, only loss.


----------



## Two Thumbs

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.




I totally support going to war with syria as long as we do it this way;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q]Nuke the entire site fom orbit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The Rabbi

With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.

I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.


----------



## dilloduck

> "[R]emoving the threat posed by Syria's chemical weapons stockpile by military force "is very, very complex."
> 
> "Even under international law, if you strike a chemical weapons base and there is collateral damage to civilians it is as if you, the attacker, used chemical weapons," he said.




Report Israeli Bombed Syrian Chemical Weapons - Business Insider


----------



## Kondor3

Nay.

--------------------

Based on what I know, and the way I feel about it, now.

I reserve the right to change my mind later if that strikes me as appropriate.


----------



## ScienceRocks

FUCK NO! Lets go back to the moon


----------



## RandallFlagg

The Rabbi said:


> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.



I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.

Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?

This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?

I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.


----------



## bianco

tinydancer said:


> I can't figure for the life of me why he hates Assad this much.
> 
> This is beyond strange. He and Cameron are really over the top on trying to kill him.



Indeed...and to what end?
Installing the 'Muslim rebels'/Muslim Brotherhood as 'king', like they did in Egypt and Libya.

Maybe they are in love with the Muslim Brotherhood?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Matthew said:


> FUCK NO! Lets go back to the moon



What!?!?


Dumb and Dumber - We Landed on the Moon! - YouTube


----------



## Vox

Gracie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children".
Click to expand...


they say that wise people learn on other people mistakes.

What will you call us if we do not want to learn on our own mistakes?


----------



## The Rabbi

RandallFlagg said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.
> 
> Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?
> 
> This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?
> 
> I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.
Click to expand...


Yes it is a tough situation.  The deal with Russia is very dangerous and thanks to Obama's "reset" in relations we have even less leverage than we did under Bush.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Vox said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, last time I saw this subject, the reason for yae was "for the children".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they say that wise people learn on other people mistakes.
> 
> What will you call us if we do not want to learn on our own mistakes?
Click to expand...



Doomed........


----------



## dilloduck

damn right it stinks. We're helping Islamic militants to take over Syria . Do we really need any more evidence than that ? Time to ask ourselves what the real agenda is here. Do we want to risk global war just so Islamic militants can take over Syria ?


----------



## francoHFW

War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.


----------



## dilloduck

francoHFW said:


> War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...



Our rebels  

We don't even know who initiated the chemical attack. How about we find out who did it first before we go around lynching people ?


----------



## TNHarley

I would **** to add that syria is not even in the CWC! 
COMPLETE game changer imo


----------



## TNHarley

francoHFW said:


> War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.



u fuckin republucan war monger!


----------



## dilloduck

TNHarley said:


> I would **** to add that syria is not even in the CWC!
> COMPLETE game changer imo



Minor detail.


----------



## TNHarley

dilloduck said:


> damn right it stinks. We're helping Islamic militants to take over Syria . Do we really need any more evidence than that ? Time to ask ourselves what the real agenda is here. Do we want to risk global war just so Islamic militants can take over Syria ?



I think there is a DEEP agenda behind it. has to be! nithing else makes sense


----------



## Kondor3

RandallFlagg said:


> "...Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it..."



Nuclear warfare should be everyone's concern, but nobody (including the Russians and Chinese, nor we) are going to Go Nuclear over some pissant flashpoint like Syria...

And neither the Russians nor the Chinese can project Conventional Military Muscle like we can...

The Chinese aren't as heavily vested in Syria as the Russians, and they're (1) too far away and (2) lack the logistics assets to deploy on the scale required and (3) are far too pragmatic to Kill the Goose That Layed the Golden Egg... they're too deeply intertwined with our economy to make them want to rumble with us except in the most dire circumstances, and pissant Syria isn't that 'dire' to them, in comparison with Pacific Rim and Southeast and East Asia issues...

The Russians are heavily vested in Syria and they are still a formidable nuclear power but they're still chipping rust off their fleet and building new assets to replace the rusted-over ones that have been lying dormant since the Fall of the Soviet Union in the 1989-1991 timeframe... bottom line, the Russians just can't project Conventional Power like they used to, and, if they were going to jump on us, conventionally, they would have done it in Europe before The Fall, rather than with a military that is merely a pale copy of its former glory days as the muscle of the Soviet Union... they're still a force to be reckoned with, regionally, on a conventional basis, but they aren't anywhere near as 'scary' as they used to be, nor will they be, for quite some time, despite Vlad's desperate efforts to catch-em-back-up again...

OUR conventional military, on the other hand, has been kept in fighting trim and well-staffed with combat veterans and other folks chock-full of real-world experience...

The Iranians, on the other hand, continue to be something of a joke, beyond the realm of regionally-capable ballistic missile technology, and all we'd need to do is sic the Israelis on 'em, to make 'em pee their pants. No, I think they'd like for all of this go away quietly, or to contribute as little as possible, to keep 'em out of trouble, and to give 'em the peace they need to continue to build upon their Revolution...

But... all that being said... and assuming, for the moment, that that snapshot summary was more right than wrong...

Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...

At present, my own feelings about this are...

Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.


----------



## bianco

dilloduck said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our rebels
> 
> We don't even know who initiated the chemical attack. How about we find out who did it first before we go around lynching people ?
Click to expand...



Not my rebels...these Muslim haters of all things Christian;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E49R8zMJb5s]Libyan NTC Islamists Destroying British and Commonwealth War Cemetery Benghaz - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## dilloduck

TNHarley said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn right it stinks. We're helping Islamic militants to take over Syria . Do we really need any more evidence than that ? Time to ask ourselves what the real agenda is here. Do we want to risk global war just so Islamic militants can take over Syria ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a DEEP agenda behind it. has to be! nithing else makes sense
Click to expand...


seriously---how long do we tolerate being lied to like this ? There have been a number of people who claim to know of larger agendas but they are all shot down as conspiracy nuts. It might be time to listen to them....


----------



## Unkotare

There is no way Obama is going to back any large scale ground forces in Syria. He has talked himself out of that option. He will authorize a few missile strikes, declare a no-fly zone that will probably be unenforced, put US weapons on French planes to fly around for the cameras, and spend more time worrying about Putin than the people of Syria.


----------



## 007

So... let me get this straight... the libroids here are actually AGAINST something their MESSIAH is planning on doing? ... 

Has HELL frozen over?


----------



## aaronleland

007 said:


> So... let me get this straight... the libroids here are actually AGAINST something their MESSIAH is planning on doing? ...
> 
> Has HELL frozen over?



I know you live in a black and white world, where all liberals are evil totalitarians, and all conservatives are stalwart defenders of the Constitution, but fortunately it's only the fantasy, hate-filled world you live in.


----------



## TNHarley

Unkotare said:


> There is no way Obama is going to back any large scale ground forces in Syria. He has talked himself out of that option. He will authorize a few missile strikes, declare a no-fly zone that will probably be unenforced, put US weapons on French planes to fly around for the cameras, and spend more time worrying about Putin than the people of Syria.



we shouldnt do ANYTHING


----------



## TNHarley

dilloduck said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn right it stinks. We're helping Islamic militants to take over Syria . Do we really need any more evidence than that ? Time to ask ourselves what the real agenda is here. Do we want to risk global war just so Islamic militants can take over Syria ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a DEEP agenda behind it. has to be! nithing else makes sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seriously---how long do we tolerate being lied to like this ? There have been a number of people who claim to know of larger agendas but they are all shot down as conspiracy nuts. It might be time to listen to them....
Click to expand...


damn strait! I just heard the un cant even determine who used the chemicak weapons. dint tell me there isnt a damn agenda! they are fixated on helping radicals take that country over. just wonder why???


----------



## candycorn

no.


----------



## dilloduck

Unkotare said:


> There is no way Obama is going to back any large scale ground forces in Syria. He has talked himself out of that option. He will authorize a few missile strikes, declare a no-fly zone that will probably be unenforced, put US weapons on French planes to fly around for the cameras, and spend more time worrying about Putin than the people of Syria.



Clinton ( Bill) said he looked like a pussy so I guess he has to do something.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...
> 
> At present, my own feelings about this are...
> 
> Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.



I may have mentioned this elsewhere but:

And here we have all the myopic, spineless, irresponsible isolationists indulging in the easy refrain of "fuck it, it's not our problem!" Some of y'all must have the memory of a goldfish not to recall what tends to happen when we turn our backs, ignore or avoid problems and let them stew, or count on (of all people) the Europeans to "handle it." 

Half-assing it doesn't cut it either. Clinton lobbing a few missiles into some sand or at a baby food factory - or saying "Who's this Bin Laden fellow? No thanks, you keep him" - didn't solve a problem that came back to bite us in the ass. Obama making some empty declarations well after the moment had passed didn't do jack shit for brave Iranians demanding democracy who were gunned down in the street. "Leading from behind" leaves us exactly there, but when the shit hits the fan - and it inevitably does - all those leading in the front will climb all over each other to scurry behind us as they both demand that we act and vilify us for it at the same time. 

We are a world leader - the world leader - whether some of you like it or not. A lot of you should have thought of this before electing - twice! - an incompetent, dithering, unqualified one term senator to be Commander in Chief.


----------



## OriginalShroom

It's an internal issue.

A Civil War.

We are not being threatened.

If the EU has issues, let them deal with it with their lives and money.   Not ours.


----------



## AyeCantSeeYou

No. Let them continue fighting themselves. Nothing we do will stop it.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Kondor3 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warfare should be everyone's concern, but nobody (including the Russians and Chinese, nor we) are going to Go Nuclear over some pissant flashpoint like Syria...
> 
> And neither the Russians nor the Chinese can project Conventional Military Muscle like we can...
> 
> The Chinese aren't as heavily vested in Syria as the Russians, and they're (1) too far away and (2) lack the logistics assets to deploy on the scale required and (3) are far too pragmatic to Kill the Goose That Layed the Golden Egg... they're too deeply intertwined with our economy to make them want to rumble with us except in the most dire circumstances, and pissant Syria isn't that 'dire' to them, in comparison with Pacific Rim and Southeast and East Asia issues...
> 
> The Russians are heavily vested in Syria and they are still a formidable nuclear power but they're still chipping rust off their fleet and building new assets to replace the rusted-over ones that have been lying dormant since the Fall of the Soviet Union in the 1989-1991 timeframe... bottom line, the Russians just can't project Conventional Power like they used to, and, if they were going to jump on us, conventionally, they would have done it in Europe before The Fall, rather than with a military that is merely a pale copy of its former glory days as the muscle of the Soviet Union... they're still a force to be reckoned with, regionally, on a conventional basis, but they aren't anywhere near as 'scary' as they used to be, nor will they be, for quite some time, despite Vlad's desperate efforts to catch-em-back-up again...
> 
> OUR conventional military, on the other hand, has been kept in fighting trim and well-staffed with combat veterans and other folks chock-full of real-world experience...
> 
> The Iranians, on the other hand, continue to be something of a joke, beyond the realm of regionally-capable ballistic missile technology, and all we'd need to do is sic the Israelis on 'em, to make 'em pee their pants. No, I think they'd like for all of this go away quietly, or to contribute as little as possible, to keep 'em out of trouble, and to give 'em the peace they need to continue to build upon their Revolution...
> 
> But... all that being said... and assuming, for the moment, that that snapshot summary was more right than wrong...
> 
> Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...
> 
> At present, my own feelings about this are...
> 
> Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.
Click to expand...



Excellent points and I agree. No ne, however, is projecting a nuclear conflict. No one. While the Russians are not the Soviet Union of the 50s-80s, do not make the mistake of thinking they are not a force to be reckoned with. Same thing with Iran. Iran itself currently sports a standing Army of nearly 500,000

Here's one of the major problems with allowing this "thing" to escalate beyond the punitive action of short range missiles: America is "war weary". We have been in one conflict or another for the past 13 years. At the same time, the military, as ordered by the CIC, has began a force-wide draw down. 

Our equipment is old. Our military is losing senior enlisted and officers at a rate not seen since the end of WWII. To begin involvement in yet another ToO would be extremely difficult, but could be done.

Yes, our military is combat hardened. but so are these "rebels". They have been at war for 2000 years. They would love to get America, Russia and Iran involved in a full scale confrontation. Tht would bring to fruition plans that were made long before you and I were born.

No, I am all for sitting on the sidelines on this occasion. What is going to happen in Syria is going to happen with or without our involvement. Quite frankly, I don't see losing one DROP of American blood as "worth it".


----------



## 007

aaronleland said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... let me get this straight... the libroids here are actually AGAINST something their MESSIAH is planning on doing? ...
> 
> Has HELL frozen over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you live in a black and white world, where all liberals are evil totalitarians, and all conservatives are stalwart defenders of the Constitution, but fortunately it's only the fantasy, hate-filled world you live in.
Click to expand...


I know what I read here and see in the news, and that is 99.999% of all liberals would let obama shit in their mouth and then tell him thank you, so don't give me any crap about how suddenly they've all become rational human beings, idiot.

I don't live in your world of lies and two faced bull shit.


----------



## RandallFlagg

The saber-rattling has already begun:

The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/puti...e-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/


----------



## dilloduck

RandallFlagg said:


> The saber-rattling has already begun:
> 
> The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News



Bingo----shades of the Cuban missile crisis.


----------



## Desperado

No War
No Intervention
No Cruise Missiles
No Aid to the Rebels
Nothing, nada, zip, zero


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...
> 
> At present, my own feelings about this are...
> 
> Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I may have mentioned this elsewhere but:
> 
> And here we have all the *myopic, spineless, irresponsible isolationists* indulging in the easy refrain of "fuck it, it's not our problem!" Some of y'all must have the memory of a goldfish not to recall what tends to happen when we turn our backs, ignore or avoid problems and let them stew, or count on (of all people) the Europeans to "handle it._"
Click to expand...


"Spineless isolationist"???

Hardly.

I regularly argue in defense of our initial pounce upon Afghanistan while bemoaning our invasion of Iraq.

I regularly argue in defense of standing alongside our Japanese allies when they are confronted by the Russians or Chinese (ditto for the Philippines, Australia, NZ, etc.).

I regularly argue in defense of standing alongside our South Korean allies when they are confronted by the North Koreans or their backers.

I regularly argue in defense of standing alongside our European allies when they are threatened.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to stand alongside Israel.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to back the rebels in Libya, and have often argued in defense of our various airstrikes against the Qaddafi Regime years ago.

I regularly argue in defense of the modern-day adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine and oftentimes back our interventions in the Western Hemisphere as necessary evils.

I regularly argue in favor of our initial decision to intervene in Vietnam, but then switch gears and argue against the MANNER and DURATION of LACK-OF-GOALS that manifested themselves in the execution of that intervention.

I regularly argue in defense of our decision to oppose Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the 1990-1991 timeframe and in support of the Gulf War, in general.

I regulary argue in favor of US intervention in lesser regions and conflicts, such as Somalia and Ruwanda, insofar as we can be of use in stopping genocide or rescuing Westerners caught up in their brand of madness.

Broadly speaking, I have regularly argued in favor of MOST (not all, but MOST) of our Military Adventures and alliances and sorties since WWII.

That is NOT the mark of a 'myopic, spineless iresponsible isolationist'.

==============================

But we are, at present, rather over-tired, and with a near-to-empty wallet, after prosecuting two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) in the past 12 years, while our Euro friends have only provided marginal assistance (with the Brits coming closest to being an exception) when stacked against the total need...

The Euros have been recovering under the American Military Umbrella for much of the past 68 years since the end of WWII, and have largely 'skated' and 'let George do it' - let the Americans carry the lion's share of the water - in defense of The West - throughout that entire span of history...

That's all understandable... they bled themselves white in two World Wars within a quarter-century and it decimated and bankrupted them and caused them to lose their appetites for aggression, for the most part...

But they're recovered now, and we don't need to be carrying their water any longer - or at least not all the time, with respect to small-to-medium-sized regional conflicts and the like... they're back into a condition where they can once again handle much of what needs to be handled in their own back yards, with us to back them up in the background, in case they do end-up getting-in over their heads...

Well.. we've done our bit for King and Country... and for The Alliance... and it's time we take a break... we would not be retreating from the world stage, just declining to get our tits in the wringer again before we even know what-the-hell we're getting into, or WHY, for that matter...

There is no pressing and overpowering-compelling strategic nor tactical rationale for us to engage on a substantive level...

There is no clear collection of Good Guys currently engaged in this civil war, either, and the cure might very well be just as bad as the disease...

It's OK to "take a pass" once in a while, and advocating for doing just that is NOT the same thing as 'chickening out' or abrogating our own global responsibilities or abandoning our own global interests, or acting like 'myopic, spineless isolationists'.

'Most every President has his own little (or big) war, at some point, during his Administration...

Time to break the recent pattern, and show some restraint for once, and give our military a chance to disengage from the one major war that we're still fighting, and to catch its breath, and to give our pocketbooks a rest as well, at a point in history where we're cutting back domestically, left and right...

Let the Syrians rot... let the Euros spend THEIR blood and treasure for once... we can meet any related NATO obligations (if any) by providing mere logistical support and political cover in the UN for once, rather than actively participating on any significant scale... let the Syrians rot.


----------



## deltex1

No on US war.  Yes on international heavy response.  Any response from Iran or anyone else...turn the Israelis loose with our support.  Target Assad would be my number one option.


----------



## dilloduck

dilloduck said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The saber-rattling has already begun:
> 
> The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo----shades of the Cuban missile crisis.
Click to expand...


From the same article



> The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.
> 
> The cost of Qatars intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.
> 
> Qatar [also] has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the worlds biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).


----------



## R.C. Christian

The executive branch and it's controllers are completely uninterested in the fact that 91% of Americans are against this stupidity.


----------



## dilloduck

Apparently it's all about oil again too.


----------



## RandallFlagg

R.C. Christian said:


> The executive branch and it's controllers are completely uninterested in the fact that 91% of Americans are against this stupidity.




I have often wondered how it is, that when a sitting presidents' "polls" begin to go into the toliet, some sort of International "crisis" always rears it's ugly head.

Barry is finished. He is a lame duck now. All he is working toward now, is his supposed "legacy". This can be a very dangerous thing. ALL these past presidents care a great deal about how they will be perceived in history. They ALL want to leave their mark.

Funny. Barry's poll numbers are now down around 35%........


----------



## Samson

High_Gravity said:


> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.



You've intimidated the entire USMB membership.

Yea's = 0
Nea's = 41


----------



## R.C. Christian

dilloduck said:


> Apparently it's all about oil again too.



You're close, but it's much bigger.


----------



## skye

All out war?    NO

Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES


----------



## R.C. Christian

Unkotare said:


> There is no way Obama is going to back any large scale ground forces in Syria. He has talked himself out of that option. He will authorize a few missile strikes, declare a no-fly zone that will probably be unenforced, put US weapons on French planes to fly around for the cameras, and spend more time worrying about Putin than the people of Syria.



Whenever you speak, it embarrasses me. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## R.C. Christian

RandallFlagg said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The executive branch and it's controllers are completely uninterested in the fact that 91% of Americans are against this stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have often wondered how it is, that when a sitting presidents' "polls" begin to go into the toliet, some sort of International "crisis" always rears it's ugly head.
> 
> Barry is finished. He is a lame duck now. All he is working toward now, is his supposed "legacy". This can be a very dangerous thing. ALL these past presidents care a great deal about how they will be perceived in history. They ALL want to leave their mark.
> 
> Funny. Barry's poll numbers are now down around 35%........
Click to expand...


Using the Kosovo model as our judge, we'll see this unpopular fiasco turn into an impeachment proceeding. This all assumes a regional nuclear war doesn't happen first. No good can come of this.


----------



## dilloduck

R.C. Christian said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's all about oil again too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're close, but it's much bigger.
Click to expand...


petrodollars


----------



## Samson

R.C. Christian said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's all about oil again too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're close, but it's much bigger.
Click to expand...




It's all about what Miley Cyrus wore during her VMA performance?


----------



## Contumacious

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



In the future include a FUCK, nay option.

Thanks.

.


----------



## Contumacious

Samson said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's all about oil again too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're close, but it's much bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about what Miley Cyrus wore during her VMA performance?
Click to expand...


Miley Cyrus For Prez






.


----------



## RandallFlagg

skye said:


> All out war?    NO
> 
> Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES




Those chemical facilities are in Russia. The stockpiles are (most likely) in hardened bunkers 100-200 feet down in Syria. Remember, there is an 80-20%
certainty that those weapons came from plants within Russia.


----------



## Contumacious

RandallFlagg said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All out war?    NO
> 
> Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those chemical facilities are in Russia. The stockpiles are (most likely) in hardened bunkers 100-200 feet down in Syria. Remember, t*here is an 80-20%
> certainty that those weapons came from plants within Russia*.
Click to expand...


Are you one of Bibi's boys posting bullshit for Shekels?!?!?!?!

.


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



You are asking the wrong question. I do not support getting heavily involved in the Syrian Civil War given that the rebels have deep ties with Al Quada. But, the use of chemical weapons is a separate issue that must be addressed. Whether Assad wins or loses, he cannot be allowed to use chemical weapons without being punished. It would set a dangerous precedent in world affairs. It would lessen the taboo of resorting to WMD and would make the world a far more dangerous place. 

            So a Cruise Missile strike to punish Assad for the chemical weapons use is justified and should prevent Assad from ever used the Chemicals again given the cost he would sustain in using them. It would be counterproductive for him.

             So the question you should be asking is this. *Do you support a United States Cruise Missile strike to punish Assad for using Chemical Weapons?*


----------



## RandallFlagg

Contumacious said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All out war?    NO
> 
> Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those chemical facilities are in Russia. The stockpiles are (most likely) in hardened bunkers 100-200 feet down in Syria. Remember, t*here is an 80-20%
> certainty that those weapons came from plants within Russia*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one of Bibi's boys posting bullshit for Shekels?!?!?!?!
> 
> .
Click to expand...



What the hell are you talking about?


Who Supplied Syria With Chemical Weapons?


----------



## TNHarley

if we, excuse me OBAMA attacks, syria will probably go after Israel, right? how do you think Israel would respond? nukes!


----------



## Samson

Contumacious said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're close, but it's much bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about what Miley Cyrus wore during her VMA performance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Miley Cyrus For Prez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...





She'd get my vote based on tongue-length alone.


----------



## dilloduck

TNHarley said:


> if we, excuse me OBAMA attacks, syria will probably go after Israel, right? how do you think Israel would respond? nukes!



no worries---everyone thinks everyone is bluffing. Father Obama will protect us all.


----------



## Smilebong

skye said:


> All out war?    NO
> 
> Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES



This is about what I am thinking will happen.


----------



## skye

TNHarley said:


> if we, excuse me OBAMA attacks, syria will probably go after Israel, right? how do you think Israel would respond? nukes!




Sadly and frightening, nukes will be  the very last resort..... and I don't think we are at that stage....yet.... 


In any case Israel would never be the first to start a nuclear war, Iran is more likely to do it, either by proxy in its sneaky way, or  just up front. I don't trust  the Iranian Regime.


----------



## dilloduck

skye said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we, excuse me OBAMA attacks, syria will probably go after Israel, right? how do you think Israel would respond? nukes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly and frightening, nukes will be  the very last resort..... and I don't think we are at that stage....yet....
> 
> 
> In any case Israel would never be the first to start a nuclear war, Iran is more likely to do it, either by proxy in its sneaky way, or  just up front. I don't trust  the Iranian Regime.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding ?  If Israel was in danger of going down in defeat they would use a nuke in a heart beat. That's what they are for.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Smilebong said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All out war?    NO
> 
> Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about what I am thinking will happen.
Click to expand...


Can't happen from the air - Chemical agents will be dispersed into the air. The ONLY way to destroy the stockpiles is to put "boots on the ground" in the form of Special Operators.


----------



## Smilebong

RandallFlagg said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All out war?    NO
> 
> Destroy in a surgical way  the chemical facilities so these savages can not use them again?  YES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about what I am thinking will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't happen from the air - Chemical agents will be dispersed into the air. The ONLY way to destroy the stockpiles is to put "boots on the ground" in the form of Special Operators.
Click to expand...


Obama said over the weekend that *he will not *deploy ground forces.


----------



## RandallFlagg

dilloduck said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we, excuse me OBAMA attacks, syria will probably go after Israel, right? how do you think Israel would respond? nukes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly and frightening, nukes will be  the very last resort..... and I don't think we are at that stage....yet....
> 
> 
> In any case Israel would never be the first to start a nuclear war, Iran is more likely to do it, either by proxy in its sneaky way, or  just up front. I don't trust  the Iranian Regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding ?  If Israel was in danger of going down in defeat they would use a nuke in a heart beat. That's what they are for.
Click to expand...


My opinion - if it comes down to the "last resort" scenario, doesn't really matter who uses them first - all hell is going to unleashed by EVERYBODY.

It would take a LOT for it to actually come to that. Could it happen? You bet. Unfortunately, look at my sig line below. It's called "Armageddon"


----------



## Contumacious

RandallFlagg said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those chemical facilities are in Russia. The stockpiles are (most likely) in hardened bunkers 100-200 feet down in Syria. Remember, t*here is an 80-20%
> certainty that those weapons came from plants within Russia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of Bibi's boys posting bullshit for Shekels?!?!?!?!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> Who Supplied Syria With Chemical Weapons?
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about?

How the fuck do they know who supplied and used the gas?

.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Not until we can at least figure out what side is our side. Right now I don't see either the government or the rebels being any good for us so why not sit back and watch them destroy each other? So far every intervention we have made isn't helping (Libya), the ones we kinda sat out are going to sh*t (Egypt). These people always seem to need to be fighting somebody and right now they are focused on each other so let them have at it. Hell, We can't even prove which side actually did the gas bombings, the rebels could have done it for all we know.

Give me a good reason or at least an acceptable ally in the conflict worth supporting. It's like choosing the Crips or Bloods at this point so support neither.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

RandallFlagg said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly and frightening, nukes will be  the very last resort..... and I don't think we are at that stage....yet....
> 
> 
> In any case Israel would never be the first to start a nuclear war, Iran is more likely to do it, either by proxy in its sneaky way, or  just up front. I don't trust  the Iranian Regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding ?  If Israel was in danger of going down in defeat they would use a nuke in a heart beat. That's what they are for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion - if it comes down to the "last resort" scenario, doesn't really matter who uses them first - all hell is going to unleashed by EVERYBODY.
> 
> It would take a LOT for it to actually come to that. Could it happen? You bet. Unfortunately, look at my sig line below. It's called "Armageddon"
Click to expand...


Sure seems ripe for Armageddon doesn't it?


----------



## skye

dilloduck said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we, excuse me OBAMA attacks, syria will probably go after Israel, right? how do you think Israel would respond? nukes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly and frightening, nukes will be  the very last resort..... and I don't think we are at that stage....yet....
> 
> 
> In any case Israel would never be the first to start a nuclear war, Iran is more likely to do it, either by proxy in its sneaky way, or  just up front. I don't trust  the Iranian Regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding ?  If Israel was in danger of going down in defeat they would use a nuke in a heart beat. That's what they are for.
Click to expand...




It is ridiculous to talk about nuclear attacks  at this moment.... a nuclear attack would ensure mutual destruction  on all sides and it would be an end of the world scenario. 

Despite all the hype, all parties realize this.


----------



## THORAX

We are not the world police.

Stay the fuck out of the middle east and leave them the fuck alone so they'll leave us the fuck alone.

Our government is a fucking bully.


----------



## dilloduck

skye said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly and frightening, nukes will be  the very last resort..... and I don't think we are at that stage....yet....
> 
> 
> In any case Israel would never be the first to start a nuclear war, Iran is more likely to do it, either by proxy in its sneaky way, or  just up front. I don't trust  the Iranian Regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding ?  If Israel was in danger of going down in defeat they would use a nuke in a heart beat. That's what they are for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous to talk about nuclear attacks  at this moment.... a nuclear attack would ensure mutual destruction  on all sides and it would be an end of the world scenario.
> 
> Despite all the hype, all parties realize this.
Click to expand...


One day someone will not back down. We never know when that time may come.


----------



## tinydancer

I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.

This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. 
But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Smilebong said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about what I am thinking will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't happen from the air - Chemical agents will be dispersed into the air. The ONLY way to destroy the stockpiles is to put "boots on the ground" in the form of Special Operators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama said over the weekend that *he will not *deploy ground forces.
Click to expand...


And I sincerely hope tht he holds to that. My point was that an attack from the air on the sites where chemical weapons are reportedly stored would only accomplish dispersing the agents into the air. Probably do more harm (to civilians) than good.


----------



## tinydancer

Why does America want Assad dead?

Let us talk about the elephant in the room. Why does America want to turn over Syria to Al Qaeda and kill Assad?


----------



## skye

tinydancer said:


> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.



Nobody is going after Assad.

US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.

Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.


----------



## dilloduck

skye said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is going after Assad.
> 
> US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.
Click to expand...


He's a lying sack of shit---we have been in full support of the rebels.


----------



## tinydancer

RandallFlagg said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't happen from the air - Chemical agents will be dispersed into the air. The ONLY way to destroy the stockpiles is to put "boots on the ground" in the form of Special Operators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama said over the weekend that *he will not *deploy ground forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I sincerely hope tht he holds to that. My point was that an attack from the air on the sites where chemical weapons are reportedly stored would only accomplish dispersing the agents into the air. Probably do more harm (to civilians) than good.
Click to expand...


Tell me you don't believe that these strikes will do anything. Except inflame.


----------



## skye

dilloduck said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is going after Assad.
> 
> US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a lying sack of shit---we have been in full support of the rebels.
Click to expand...



I do not like Obama at all.

But in this one I think he is right.


----------



## bianco

dilloduck said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way Obama is going to back any large scale ground forces in Syria. He has talked himself out of that option. He will authorize a few missile strikes, declare a no-fly zone that will probably be unenforced, put US weapons on French planes to fly around for the cameras, and spend more time worrying about Putin than the people of Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton ( Bill) said he looked like a pussy so I guess he has to do something.
Click to expand...


Would Bill send Chelsea to fight and die in a war in Syria?

Would Barack send his two daughters, put them in boots on the ground there?

If they wouldn't send their own children to fight and die in Syria then they shouldn't be sending other people's children to war in Syria.

Pussy?
Barack should point Bill towards his embarrassing sins and tell him to butt out, that he Barack is 'king' now and will make his own decisions.


----------



## R.C. Christian

The United States cannot stay out of the ME because it's future depends on it. These wars are an act of desperation by a declining empire in it's death throes. You people need to get your heads around this fact.


----------



## RandallFlagg

tinydancer said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama said over the weekend that *he will not *deploy ground forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I sincerely hope tht he holds to that. My point was that an attack from the air on the sites where chemical weapons are reportedly stored would only accomplish dispersing the agents into the air. Probably do more harm (to civilians) than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me you don't believe that these strikes will do anything. Except inflame.
Click to expand...


These strikes will accomplish absolutely nothing except to inflame an already tense situation. Al Jazeera will show the deaths of civilians and we will take the blame for it. Same story - different country.

Obama will hold a news conference and tell America how much "safer" we are now. Same rhetoric - different country.

Obama, during his presidential run told America that "the president doesn't have the right to engage in military operations without the approval of Congress" yet, I fully expect him to launch missile strikes WITHOUT the approval of Congress.

Same actions - different president.


Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The Rabbi said:


> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.



Obviously McCain is just as inexperienced as Obama, if not more so: 



> McCain met with some of the Syrian rebels earlier this year and called them "freedom fighters." Others have worried that arming them might be dangerous because up to seven of the nine different rebel groups may be connected to al-Qaida.
> 
> McCain told Cavuto that isn't true, and that it is vital that the United States assist with arms to turn the battle and overthrow Assad.
> 
> McCain: Limited Cruise Missiles Not Strong Enough Response to Syria



Clearly only inexperienced candidates run for president.


----------



## Contumacious

tinydancer said:


> Why does America want Assad dead?
> 
> Let us talk about the elephant in the room. Why does America want to turn over Syria to Al Qaeda and kill Assad?



To please this man:






Then his people - the American Likudnicks - will vote democrat on the next presidential elections.

.


----------



## tinydancer

skye said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is going after Assad.
> 
> US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.
Click to expand...


Dearheart I respected you as a poster from the minute you walked in this door.

But you are wrong on this one. 

Okay, td time. Kay my friend?

Chemical weapon attack.

Video who shot with body bags no rigor setting in with a dude in black clothes with a rifle. All the bodies wonderfully lined up in a row. Nice and tidy. 

Not one person obviously filming the chemical weapon attack for having one lick of fear because no one had bio hazard suits on. 

Oh give me a freaking break. Chem attack and we have people on the ground filming the so called aftermath?

And they aren't afraid? And they are in there with body bags/linens?

I could go on endlessly. This is such bullshit I can't wrap my brain around it.


----------



## tinydancer

Contumacious said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does America want Assad dead?
> 
> Let us talk about the elephant in the room. Why does America want to turn over Syria to Al Qaeda and kill Assad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To please this man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then his people - the American Likudnicks - will vote democrat on the next presidential elections.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No way jose. No way at all. 

This is beyond a huge risk for Obama. This is not about Israel. Get real dearheart. This isn't about Israel at all.


----------



## tinydancer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously McCain is just as inexperienced as Obama, if not more so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCain met with some of the Syrian rebels earlier this year and called them "freedom fighters." Others have worried that arming them might be dangerous because up to seven of the nine different rebel groups may be connected to al-Qaida.
> 
> McCain told Cavuto that isn't true, and that it is vital that the United States assist with arms to turn the battle and overthrow Assad.
> 
> McCain: Limited Cruise Missiles Not Strong Enough Response to Syria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly only inexperienced candidates run for president.
Click to expand...


I just wish the old asshole would die. Hey so glad he served his country but now he's selling his soul so his douche bag daughter actually gets a reality tv show. 

You do know that he sucks Obama's cock daily so Meghan can succeed correct?

He's even proud of it. One Huff Po interview McCain actually said he wished he could be at the White House daily so he could advise Obama.


----------



## skye

tinydancer said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is going after Assad.
> 
> US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dearheart I respected you as a poster from the minute you walked in this door.
> 
> But you are wrong on this one.
> 
> Okay, td time. Kay my friend?
> 
> Chemical weapon attack.
> 
> Video who shot with body bags no rigor setting in with a dude in black clothes with a rifle. All the bodies wonderfully lined up in a row. Nice and tidy.
> 
> Not one person obviously filming the chemical weapon attack for having one lick of fear because no one had bio hazard suits on.
> 
> Oh give me a freaking break. Chem attack and we have people on the ground filming the so called aftermath?
> 
> And they aren't afraid? And they are in there with body bags/linens?
> 
> I could go on endlessly. This is such bullshit I can't wrap my brain around it.
Click to expand...



not a prob  

as we say often  here... we will agree to disagree.


----------



## Wyld Kard

tinydancer said:


> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?



I recently found this bit of info out.

What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?

So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!

FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |


----------



## tinydancer

skye said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is going after Assad.
> 
> US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.
Click to expand...


Are you being a smart ass here? Because if so I love it.


----------



## skye

tinydancer said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't get Obama's hard on for Assad.
> 
> This alleged attack is bullshit. It's a complete lie. But why go after Assad. I really don't get it. Is it because Assad is educated? Is it...honestly I just don't get it. \
> But Obama has a mega hard on for him and wants him to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is going after Assad.
> 
> US and the international community have the moral obligation to take out those chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama said it, he is not after Regime change in Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being a smart ass here? Because if so I love it.
Click to expand...




you are the smart ass!!!!! look at your avatar!!!!!


----------



## velvtacheeze

And thanks for calling it what it is: War. It's not some "limited, targeted police action" or other some stupid euphemism. 

I cannot believe Obama thinks this will work.  He barely got out of  the Libya mistake without losing liberal support.  This may cost him and the Dems dearly.


----------



## Contumacious

tinydancer said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does America want Assad dead?
> 
> Let us talk about the elephant in the room. Why does America want to turn over Syria to Al Qaeda and kill Assad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To please this man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then his people - the American Likudnicks - will vote democrat on the next presidential elections.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way jose. No way at all.
> 
> This is beyond a huge risk for Obama. This is not about Israel. Get real dearheart. This isn't about Israel at all.
Click to expand...


* This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration*. "*A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: *no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser,* portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel,* but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq  an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right  as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq."

.


----------



## Antares

tinydancer said:


> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?



Assad is basically secular.....as was Mubarak...there IS a pattern


----------



## R.C. Christian

Obama is a puppet. He has enormous influences directing him. He'll do and say what these influences ultimately wish. Every president will. These influences are not limited to the Jewish, war mongering scum in Israel.


----------



## tinydancer

Wildcard said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
Click to expand...


Now no offense...

He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men. 

Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug. 

Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Roo said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assad is basically secular.....as was Mubarak...there IS a pattern
Click to expand...


You're trying to reason with retards, but good luck.


----------



## R.C. Christian

tinydancer said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
Click to expand...


Well, to be fair, he's kind of a thug. I wouldn't want him as my leader, but nobody ever complained about him before this now did they?  Very telling of the hypocrisy of NATO, and the US.


----------



## Trajan

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



define "War"...


----------



## dilloduck

tinydancer said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
Click to expand...


not to be complicating things but I think Cameron and Obama are puppets following scripts that have been layed out for them on this one.


----------



## Trajan

tinydancer said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
Click to expand...



I am sorry TD but Assad is a butcher,  dress him up anyway you like. 

now; let me borrow an Obama phrase- 'let me be clear', I sppt. obama using his war powers, (until such time the war powers act  requires him to deal with congress). 

BUT he has to be decisive and strike very hard and fast. Even if it means offing assad. 


I will admit to a  juvenile delight in listening to Biden, et al sound like the gop in 2003, but then again the dems did sppt.  regime change in iraq aside from the war and Clinton brought up regime change himself in the late 90's...


"the first as tragedy, then as farce"..................


----------



## auditor0007

High_Gravity said:


> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.



Not many yes votes.  Seems that this is something everyone agrees on.  Let your Senators know where you stand.


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not to be complicating things but I think Cameron and Obama are puppets following scripts that have been layed out for them on this one.
Click to expand...


theres always that chance but I fail to see the script you're referring to, assad used chemicals, it appears to be true, key word appears. Clinton bombed the hell out of milosovic for genocidal actions vis a vis the muslims in Serbia....so?


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry TD but Assad is a butcher,  dress him up anyway you like.
> 
> now; let me borrow an Obama phrase- 'let me be clear', I sppt. obama using his war powers, (until such time the war powers act  requires him to deal with congress).
> 
> BUT he has to be decisive and strike very hard and fast. Even if it means offing assad.
> 
> 
> I will admit to a  juvenile delight in listening to Biden, et al sound like the gop in 2003, but then again the dems did sppt.  regime change in iraq aside from the war and Clinton brought up regime change himself in the late 90's...
> 
> 
> "the first as tragedy, then as farce"..................
Click to expand...


The rebels aren't angels, Trajan. Why the rebels over Assad?


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not to be complicating things but I think Cameron and Obama are puppets following scripts that have been layed out for them on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> theres always that chance but I fail to see the script you're referring to, assad used chemicals, it appears to be true, key word appears. Clinton bombed the hell out of milosovic for genocidal actions vis a vis the muslims in Serbia....so?
Click to expand...


We've supported the overthrow of Assad long before any gas was used.


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> not to be complicating things but I think Cameron and Obama are puppets following scripts that have been layed out for them on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theres always that chance but I fail to see the script you're referring to, assad used chemicals, it appears to be true, key word appears. Clinton bombed the hell out of milosovic for genocidal actions vis a vis the muslims in Serbia....so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've supported the overthrow of Assad long before any gas was used.
Click to expand...


no actually we didn't, bush saw him for what he was, obama reinstated our ambassador and decided he could talk to assad and find common ground........Kerry met with assad several items as a senator


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> theres always that chance but I fail to see the script you're referring to, assad used chemicals, it appears to be true, key word appears. Clinton bombed the hell out of milosovic for genocidal actions vis a vis the muslims in Serbia....so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've supported the overthrow of Assad long before any gas was used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no actually we didn't, bush saw him for what he was, obama reinstated our ambassador and decided he could talk to assad and find common ground........Kerry met with assad several items as a senator
Click to expand...


oh lord-----so when do you claim we began to support the rebels ?


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry TD but Assad is a butcher,  dress him up anyway you like.
> 
> now; let me borrow an Obama phrase- 'let me be clear', I sppt. obama using his war powers, (until such time the war powers act  requires him to deal with congress).
> 
> BUT he has to be decisive and strike very hard and fast. Even if it means offing assad.
> 
> 
> I will admit to a  juvenile delight in listening to Biden, et al sound like the gop in 2003, but then again the dems did sppt.  regime change in iraq aside from the war and Clinton brought up regime change himself in the late 90's...
> 
> 
> "the first as tragedy, then as farce"..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rebels aren't angels, Trajan. Why the rebels over Assad?
Click to expand...


I explained this , sorry thats why I have been merging threads like crazy, this is getting so circular......in short- Syria is an Iranian proxy (as well as hezbollah, whom assad sppts. and then theres the trouble Assad makes in Lebanon) , the rebels, that is AQ can be dealt with assad has a nation/state, which is much harder in the end to deal with as he controls every facet of the country, infrastructure etc etc ....

and sure, it could go the other way, the rebels could sweep assad out take over 3/4's of the country and then move to iraq and jordan, but, they will do that anyway if they lose.....


then we can always sit back and just let them bleed each other, but, the wmd? I don't know, to sit back and let that happen?


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've supported the overthrow of Assad long before any gas was used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no actually we didn't, bush saw him for what he was, obama reinstated our ambassador and decided he could talk to assad and find common ground........Kerry met with assad several items as a senator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh lord-----so when do you claim we began to support the rebels ?
Click to expand...


I am not sure we ever really did or do, words are words......we have provided some non military sppt so far, at least thats what we have been told. 

we're in a pickle..see my response to TD.


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> no actually we didn't, bush saw him for what he was, obama reinstated our ambassador and decided he could talk to assad and find common ground........Kerry met with assad several items as a senator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh lord-----so when do you claim we began to support the rebels ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure we ever really did or do, words are words......we have provided some non military sppt so far, at least thats what we have been told.
> 
> we're in a pickle..see my response to TD.
Click to expand...


We have small arms ready to ship to them and have been provided humanitarian aid. Bottom line is that their are a pain in the ass for Israel and friend with Iran.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Wow, 55-0, I thought the Neo Cons and Obamabots would balance it 50/50


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh lord-----so when do you claim we began to support the rebels ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure we ever really did or do, words are words......we have provided some non military sppt so far, at least thats what we have been told.
> 
> we're in a pickle..see my response to TD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have small arms ready to ship to them and have been provided humanitarian aid. Bottom line is that their are a pain in the ass for Israel and friend with Iran.
Click to expand...


the rebels are friends of Iran? uhmmm, not that I have seen....hey they may be one day, sure but now? no. 

don't forget folks, there is still a schism prevalent in Islam, sunni vs. shitte....

look at a religious map of the middle east, think on it....







here,  this one has national boundaries


----------



## Darkwind

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.


Tossing a few bombs is not a war.


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure we ever really did or do, words are words......we have provided some non military sppt so far, at least thats what we have been told.
> 
> we're in a pickle..see my response to TD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have small arms ready to ship to them and have been provided humanitarian aid. Bottom line is that their are a pain in the ass for Israel and friend with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rebels are friends of Iran? uhmmm, not that I have seen....hey they may be one day, sure but now? no.
> 
> don't forget folks, there is still a schism prevalent in Islam, sunni vs. shitte....
> 
> look at a religious map of the middle east, think on it....
Click to expand...


no---Syria is a friend of Iran which is a pain in the ass for Israel. Israel is dying to have the US blow the shit out of them. This is all about protecting Israel again. Israel is right there WITH weaponry, can fly over Assad's palace with fighter jets if they please yet America is being asked to do the dirty work again ? It's about Israel again.


----------



## Smilebong

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have small arms ready to ship to them and have been provided humanitarian aid. Bottom line is that their are a pain in the ass for Israel and friend with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the rebels are friends of Iran? uhmmm, not that I have seen....hey they may be one day, sure but now? no.
> 
> don't forget folks, there is still a schism prevalent in Islam, sunni vs. shitte....
> 
> look at a religious map of the middle east, think on it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no---Syria is a friend of Iran which is a pain in the ass for Israel. Israel is dying to have the US blow the shit out of them. This is all about protecting Israel again. Israel is right there WITH weaponry, can fly over Assad's palace with fighter jets if they please yet America is being asked to do the dirty work again ? It's about Israel again.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

Do you think this is all about Israel?


----------



## dilloduck

Smilebong said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rebels are friends of Iran? uhmmm, not that I have seen....hey they may be one day, sure but now? no.
> 
> don't forget folks, there is still a schism prevalent in Islam, sunni vs. shitte....
> 
> look at a religious map of the middle east, think on it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no---Syria is a friend of Iran which is a pain in the ass for Israel. Israel is dying to have the US blow the shit out of them. This is all about protecting Israel again. Israel is right there WITH weaponry, can fly over Assad's palace with fighter jets if they please yet America is being asked to do the dirty work again ? It's about Israel again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Do you think this is all about Israel?
Click to expand...


I'd be real open to an honest answer but all I get is nod and winks. Don't even try to tell me this is all about WMD's either  because gas was used months ago and we didn't do shit. Lay it on me---what's the REAL reason for toppling Assad ?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

It's not all about Israel, but you can bet your last ass hair they are certainly part of the equation. That isn't a new revelation.


----------



## dilloduck

Keep going====TD and I are looking for a complete answer from someone.


----------



## Darkwind

dilloduck said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> no---Syria is a friend of Iran which is a pain in the ass for Israel. Israel is dying to have the US blow the shit out of them. This is all about protecting Israel again. Israel is right there WITH weaponry, can fly over Assad's palace with fighter jets if they please yet America is being asked to do the dirty work again ? It's about Israel again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Do you think this is all about Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be real open to an honest answer but all I get is nod and winks. Don't even try to tell me this is all about WMD's either  because gas was used months ago and we didn't do shit. Lay it on me---what's the REAL reason for toppling Assad ?
Click to expand...

The President said something stupid about a red line and now they have to save face.

You don't think they care about a bunch of filthy Arabs getting gassed, do you?


----------



## dilloduck

Darkwind said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Do you think this is all about Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be real open to an honest answer but all I get is nod and winks. Don't even try to tell me this is all about WMD's either  because gas was used months ago and we didn't do shit. Lay it on me---what's the REAL reason for toppling Assad ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President said something stupid about a red line and now they have to save face.
> 
> You don't think they care about a bunch of filthy Arabs getting gassed, do you?
Click to expand...


Hell no------Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been supporting the rebels in Syria too.


----------



## Misty

No!!!!


----------



## Wyld Kard

tinydancer said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
Click to expand...


If Assad isn't already dead, he will be.  Why?  Because he is a close friend to Iran, and if we are eventually going to have a war with Iran, their allies need to be taken out first.

It's not that Obama wants Assad dead.  Obama just a puppet following orders.


----------



## TNHarley

dilloduck said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> no---Syria is a friend of Iran which is a pain in the ass for Israel. Israel is dying to have the US blow the shit out of them. This is all about protecting Israel again. Israel is right there WITH weaponry, can fly over Assad's palace with fighter jets if they please yet America is being asked to do the dirty work again ? It's about Israel again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Do you think this is all about Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be real open to an honest answer but all I get is nod and winks. Don't even try to tell me this is all about WMD's either  because gas was used months ago and we didn't do shit. Lay it on me---what's the REAL reason for toppling Assad ?
Click to expand...


yep, and who was it that used them?? Who got caught with pounds of Sarin?
Now that it happened again, the finger CONTINUES to point towards Assad and the UN cant even figure out who done it?
Whats the REAL reason?


----------



## The T

darkwind said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously?
> 
> Do you think this is all about israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd be real open to an honest answer but all i get is nod and winks. Don't even try to tell me this is all about wmd's either because gas was used months ago and we didn't do shit. Lay it on me---what's the real reason for toppling assad ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the president said something stupid about a red line and now they have to save face.
> 
> You don't think they care about a bunch of filthy arabs getting gassed, do you?
Click to expand...

"red line" x2...


----------



## dilloduck

Wildcard said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Assad isn't already dead, he will be.  Why?  Because he is a close friend to Iran, and if we are eventually going to have a war with Iran, their allies need to be taken out first.
> 
> It's not that Obama wants Assad dead.  Obama just a puppet following orders.
Click to expand...


Is that your final answer, Wildman. We support deposing Assad because he is a friend of America's enemy ?


----------



## The T

TakeAStepBack said:


> It's not all about Israel, but you can bet your last ass hair they are certainly part of the equation. That isn't a new revelation.


 YEP and certain players in this will use it as an excuse to go after them.


----------



## Duped

I think Obama should do what he does best as far as leadership goes - lead from behind. The only reason he wants to be out in front is to take the focus of his scandals!

No military action should be taken by the US! When action is required, it should be overwhelmingly decisive. We don't need to talk about the  imaginary "Red Line".  When a red line is crossed, all of us will know it.


----------



## TNHarley

TakeAStepBack said:


> It's not all about Israel, but you can bet your last ass hair they are certainly part of the equation. That isn't a new revelation.



Isnt Assad threatening Israel if we intervene? Which, they WILL attack Israel. What will Israel do? Nukes!
Maybe this is how Obama plans to get that third term 

That's it DD! That is the agenda!


----------



## dilloduck

TNHarley said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not all about Israel, but you can bet your last ass hair they are certainly part of the equation. That isn't a new revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt Assad threatening Israel if we intervene? Which, they WILL attack Israel. What will Israel do? Nukes!
> Maybe this is how Obama plans to get that third term
> 
> That's it DD! That is the agenda!
Click to expand...


naaa ---the question is why are we even bothering to intervene in a Syrian civil war ?


----------



## The T

Brain357 said:


> There would be no way to win. No!


Virtual...and REAL Checkmate. Obama IS going to do it despite what WE think...The world is watching him (and subsequently US).

WE need to stay OUT of this. (Obama needs a 'wag the dog' to avert our eyes from his growing domestic scandals, and He just doesn't care about what happens to the rest of the world...it's ALL about him and his legacy [as always]...THIS will take his legacy DOWN if he follows through...and the cheap excuses he and Kerry are using to justify it). There is NO justification.


----------



## Clementine

Looks like Obama is making a unilateral decision without involving congress.   Gee, he used to criticize this sort of thing, but suddenly it's okay.

It needs to be openly discussed.   If we get involved in any way, there needs to be a clear reason, a clear goal and approval of congress.   I don't give a shit what the U.N. thinks, but our allies, especially those in Arab countries need to have our backs.   Why aren't they already taking action?    

I don't trust Obama.   I think the only reason he wants to get involved is to help his dismal approval rating.   His decisions on foreign policy thus far have been in favor of some of the radical Muslims.   I still think his loyalties lie in places other than the U.S.

I think Obama will have a lot of opposition, including Dems, if he just decides to do this on his own.   Of course, he is a loner anyway and not a good team player.


----------



## TNHarley

dilloduck said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not all about Israel, but you can bet your last ass hair they are certainly part of the equation. That isn't a new revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt Assad threatening Israel if we intervene? Which, they WILL attack Israel. What will Israel do? Nukes!
> Maybe this is how Obama plans to get that third term
> 
> That's it DD! That is the agenda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naaa ---the question is why are we even bothering to intervene in a Syrian civil war ?
Click to expand...


Joke lol
You know the whole "Obama wanting martial law" meme


----------



## The T

Clementine said:


> Looks like Obama is making a unilateral decision without involving congress. Gee, he used to criticize this sort of thing, but suddenly it's okay.
> 
> It needs to be openly discussed. If we get involved in any way, there needs to be a clear reason, a clear goal and approval of congress. I don't give a shit what the U.N. thinks, but our allies, especially those in Arab countries need to have our backs. Why aren't they already taking action?
> 
> I don't trust Obama. I think the only reason he wants to get involved is to help his dismal approval rating. His decisions on foreign policy thus far have been in favor of some of the radical Muslims. I still think his loyalties lie in places other than the U.S.
> 
> I think Obama will have a lot of opposition, including Dems, if he just decides to do this on his own. Of course, he is a loner anyway and not a good team player.


 If he does this unilaterally? TIME to Impeach his ass. FINAL STRAW...


----------



## The T

I've been hearing all day 9% of Americans want us to go after Assad and Syria...so far that hasn't rang true with this poll on this thread...Hmmmm...

*60% Of Americans Oppose US Involvement In Syria, Only 9% Support Military Action*


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Trajan said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently found this bit of info out.
> 
> What if I told you that President Bashar Al-Assad has been dead since March 30, 2013?
> 
> So if he's been dead, has the media and the white house been lying?   YES!
> 
> FSA Announces Bashir Al-Assad Is Dead, Gives Him 12 Hours To Prove Them Wrong |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now no offense...
> 
> He's not dead. This man is so different. He is not a Saddam. He is not Muammar.  He is none of these men.
> 
> Assad is brilliant. It is important to note this. He is brilliant and well educated. He is not a thug.
> 
> Now I don't understand why Obama and his poodle Cameron want this man dead, but they do. I just don't get it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry TD but Assad is a butcher,  dress him up anyway you like.
> 
> now; let me borrow an Obama phrase- 'let me be clear', I sppt. obama using his war powers, (until such time the war powers act  requires him to deal with congress).
> 
> *BUT he has to be decisive and strike very hard and fast*. Even if it means offing assad.
> 
> 
> I will admit to a  juvenile delight in listening to Biden, et al sound like the gop in 2003, but then again the dems did sppt.  regime change in iraq aside from the war and Clinton brought up regime change himself in the late 90's...
> 
> 
> "the first as tragedy, then as farce"..................
Click to expand...

I just kinda want to address the part I bolded in your quote. What exactly can be considered an imminent threat that needed to be counter acted in a hard and fast reactionary manner when this civil war has been going on for 2 1/2 years? And now the action has been on the table for at least 5 days and the gas bombing that was supposed to be the red line happened two weeks ago, there's nothing fast or decisive about it.

Obie never seems to have time to do things right. F*cking ever. That is one pathetic president that can't even plan ahead after 2 1/2 years.


----------



## Camp

Pretty funny that so few people understand what is going on and don't realize the two biggest terrorist organizations that threaten the USA (al Qaeda) and it's interest (Hezbolla vs. Israel) have been manipulated into a war with each other, with Iran on the side of Hezbolla and the Sunni Arab states on the side of al Qaeda because they are Sunni. Assad is now dependent on Iran and Hezbolla for support. The rebels are made up of lots of different groups and al Qaeda is just one faction. So, the enemys of the USA and Israel are locked in battle, Shite vs. Sunni, muslim vs. muslim. Each in it's own Holy War against the other. Assad, with the use of internationaly forbidden chemical weapons could end the war or at least neutralize it. That would mean victory for Syria and Iran and defeat for al Qaeda on the SYRIAN BATTTLEFIELD. But they would just pop up somewhere else. The really bad danger with the gas attacks is that it can neutralize or defeat the moderate Sunni forces that are willing to work with the west in the total defeat of al Qaeda when the dust settles on the Syrian battlefield. So, the gas attacks can be a game changer and that is why they need to be stopped. The longer the battles between the terrorist groups go on, the better. They are draining resources and sending their best fighters to die in Syria. The moderate forces are holding back and watching, waiting and preparing. A few cruise missiles may be all that is needed to bring the war back into a nice slow war of attrition between our enemies. And it wouldn't hurt to to neuter the Russians too.


----------



## percysunshine

62 to zip? *Holy shit*. That has never happened on USMB before on a political issue.


----------



## eagle1462010

*no*


----------



## percysunshine

Now it is 63 to zip. This is astounding.

Who is going to be the first yes vote?


----------



## Billo_Really

percysunshine said:


> Now it is 63 to zip. This is astounding.
> 
> Who is going to be the first yes vote?


I'm number 64 and I'm getting deja vu from March of 2003.


----------



## deltex1

"What exactly can be considered an imminent threat that needed to be counter acted in a hard and fast reactionary manner when this civil war has been going on for 2 1/2 years"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The imminent threat to obabbles credibility for shooting his mouth off about red lines.


----------



## Billo_Really

If chemical weapons were used, then lets see the evidence you half-black basturd!


----------



## dilloduck

deltex1 said:


> "What exactly can be considered an imminent threat that needed to be counter acted in a hard and fast reactionary manner when this civil war has been going on for 2 1/2 years"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> The imminent threat to obabbles credibility for shooting his mouth off about red lines.



I think the folks that are supporting the rebels are getting a little impatient and having to spend too much money.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

No


----------



## dilloduck

Camp said:


> Pretty funny that so few people understand what is going on and don't realize the two biggest terrorist organizations that threaten the USA (al Qaeda) and it's interest (Hezbolla vs. Israel) have been manipulated into a war with each other, with Iran on the side of Hezbolla and the Sunni Arab states on the side of al Qaeda because they are Sunni. Assad is now dependent on Iran and Hezbolla for support. The rebels are made up of lots of different groups and al Qaeda is just one faction. So, the enemys of the USA and Israel are locked in battle, Shite vs. Sunni, muslim vs. muslim. Each in it's own Holy War against the other. Assad, with the use of internationaly forbidden chemical weapons could end the war or at least neutralize it. That would mean victory for Syria and Iran and defeat for al Qaeda on the SYRIAN BATTTLEFIELD. But they would just pop up somewhere else. The really bad danger with the gas attacks is that it can neutralize or defeat the moderate Sunni forces that are willing to work with the west in the total defeat of al Qaeda when the dust settles on the Syrian battlefield. So, the gas attacks can be a game changer and that is why they need to be stopped. The longer the battles between the terrorist groups go on, the better. They are draining resources and sending their best fighters to die in Syria. The moderate forces are holding back and watching, waiting and preparing. A few cruise missiles may be all that is needed to bring the war back into a nice slow war of attrition between our enemies. And it wouldn't hurt to to neuter the Russians too.



Well maybe they outta just go ahead and do that instead of trying to bullshit the world about some gas attack.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Another option would be hell fucking no!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## asaratis

percysunshine said:


> 62 to zip? *Holy shit*. That has never happened on USMB before on a political issue.


Perhaps we have all seen what war does to our brave young men from both sides of the aisle.



Billo_Really said:


> If chemical weapons were used, then lets see the evidence you half-black basturd!


Perhaps you do not have a television set, you completely stupid bastard!  ...and get yourself a fuckin' dictionary and learn a few words..and how to spell 'em!


----------



## Vox

Camp said:


> Pretty funny that so few people understand what is going on and don't realize the two biggest terrorist organizations that threaten the USA (al Qaeda) and it's interest (Hezbolla vs. Israel) have been manipulated into a war with each other, with Iran on the side of Hezbolla and the Sunni Arab states on the side of al Qaeda because they are Sunni. Assad is now dependent on Iran and Hezbolla for support. The rebels are made up of lots of different groups and al Qaeda is just one faction. So, the enemys of the USA and Israel are locked in battle, Shite vs. Sunni, muslim vs. muslim. Each in it's own Holy War against the other. Assad, with the use of internationaly forbidden chemical weapons could end the war or at least neutralize it. That would mean victory for Syria and Iran and defeat for al Qaeda on the SYRIAN BATTTLEFIELD. But they would just pop up somewhere else. The really bad danger with the gas attacks is that it can neutralize or defeat the moderate Sunni forces that are willing to work with the west in the total defeat of al Qaeda when the dust settles on the Syrian battlefield. So, the gas attacks can be a game changer and that is why they need to be stopped. The longer the battles between the terrorist groups go on, the better. They are draining resources and sending their best fighters to die in Syria. The moderate forces are holding back and watching, waiting and preparing. A few cruise missiles may be all that is needed to bring the war back into a nice slow war of attrition between our enemies. And it wouldn't hurt to to neuter the Russians too.




I wouldn't get involved just yet. Maybe we won't get involved at all - let the European handle it - this time. We will watch and criticize 

Otherwise you are right.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Katzndogz said:


> A war to support obama's lies?  No.



You really are a partisan moron.


----------



## paulitician

Gee, how convenient. Assad has become the Chemical Weapons Boogeyman they desperately wanted him to be. Way too convenient if you ask me. I'm not buying our Government's story on this.


----------



## Vox

percysunshine said:


> 62 to zip? *Holy shit*. That has never happened on USMB before on a political issue.



well, this is an exemplary bipartisanship ever 

70 to zip


----------



## paulitician

The T said:


> I've been hearing all day 9% of Americans want us to go after Assad and Syria...so far that hasn't rang true with this poll on this thread...Hmmmm...
> 
> *60% Of Americans Oppose US Involvement In Syria, Only 9% Support Military Action*



Yes, the Government/Media Complex is having a tough time spinning this one. Looks like the American People aren't buying it. They're gonna have to do some heavy spinning to change the Poll numbers. Who knows what they'll try next. Stay tuned.


----------



## Smilebong

percysunshine said:


> Now it is 63 to zip. This is astounding.
> 
> Who is going to be the first yes vote?



I think it is a bipartisan hatred for death and mayhem among our soldiers.

I lost 2 good friends in Afghanistan.  I do not want to lose any more.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Its not a good idea to police wild people/nations, all you will get in return is and big,*fuck you*, there is no way to please or appease a wild man, or peoples.
2. In my expert opinion we have to pass on this one, if we kill one group of wild men, so what, all we will accomplish is further the cause of the other wild men/group.
3. Either one we take out won't make any difference, in the end both wild men will hate us.
4. Lets just don't and say we did.
5. I voted *NO*!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## francoHFW

The Arab League says Assad did it, France, UK and NATO said he did it, only Putin, China and god knows who, Beck? says he didn't. And this shall not pass. This ain't chickenhawk Raygun and Saddam. This president has principles, not BS. The GOP will bitch to high heaven no matter what he does (except McCain maybe, the only man they have  left LOL). What a bunch of a-holes.


----------



## paulitician

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. Its not a good idea to police wild people/nations, all you will get in return is and big,*fuck you*, there is no way to please or appease a wild man, or peoples.
> 2. In my expert opinion we have to pass on this one, if we kill one group of wild men, so what, all we will accomplish is further the cause of the other wild men/group.
> 3. Either one we take out won't make any difference, in the end both wild men will hate us.
> 4. Lets just don't and say we did.
> 5. I voted *NO*!!!
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



Well said. Thanks.


----------



## Camp

dilloduck said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny that so few people understand what is going on and don't realize the two biggest terrorist organizations that threaten the USA (al Qaeda) and it's interest (Hezbolla vs. Israel) have been manipulated into a war with each other, with Iran on the side of Hezbolla and the Sunni Arab states on the side of al Qaeda because they are Sunni. Assad is now dependent on Iran and Hezbolla for support. The rebels are made up of lots of different groups and al Qaeda is just one faction. So, the enemys of the USA and Israel are locked in battle, Shite vs. Sunni, muslim vs. muslim. Each in it's own Holy War against the other. Assad, with the use of internationaly forbidden chemical weapons could end the war or at least neutralize it. That would mean victory for Syria and Iran and defeat for al Qaeda on the SYRIAN BATTTLEFIELD. But they would just pop up somewhere else. The really bad danger with the gas attacks is that it can neutralize or defeat the moderate Sunni forces that are willing to work with the west in the total defeat of al Qaeda when the dust settles on the Syrian battlefield. So, the gas attacks can be a game changer and that is why they need to be stopped. The longer the battles between the terrorist groups go on, the better. They are draining resources and sending their best fighters to die in Syria. The moderate forces are holding back and watching, waiting and preparing. A few cruise missiles may be all that is needed to bring the war back into a nice slow war of attrition between our enemies. And it wouldn't hurt to to neuter the Russians too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe they outta just go ahead and do that instead of trying to bullshit the world about some gas attack.
Click to expand...


I have access to Russian news broadcast. The real stuff, not the english translation stuff. My Russian friends tell me they are admitting and confirming the gas attacks, but claiming it came from the rebel forces and is a set-up to get western support. It's not hard to confirm a gas attack. It kills the animals as well as the people. Once you find the outer perimeter of dead birds, dogs, rats, etc. you can determine the size of the ordinence. Once you decide the size of the ordinence you look for the point of impact. With that data you can determine the delivery system. Once you determine the delivery system you can ascertain who has that type of system, or who had the ability to deliver ordinence of that size. Ofcourse if both sides have the capibility, you are nowhere, unless you are able to determine the angle of impact and hence, which direction it came from. But if only one side has the ability, even when certain tech data is lacking, you have your proof.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The international community of nations needs to step up as one and condemn Assad.  It's too bad our country can't support an indictment of Assad for War Crimes by the International Court of Justice.  See why here:

International Court of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We should not do anything unilaterally, but under the umbrella of the UN and NATO a massive bombing attack on the command and control of the Assad military would be welcome, and a Cruise Missile with Assad's name on it would be especially pleasing.


----------



## paulitician

francoHFW said:


> The Arab League says Assad did it, France, UK and NATO said he did it, only Putin, China and god knows who, Beck? says he didn't. And this shall not pass. This ain't chickenhawk Raygun and Saddam. This president has principles, not BS. The GOP will bitch to high heaven no matter what he does (except McCain maybe, the only man they have  left LOL). What a bunch of a-holes.



No offense, but you're sounding like an irrational rabid Warmonger. Nothing about this accusation makes sense. There is absolutely no strategic value in Assad using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen. It's just another sad War Propaganda sham. Looks like you're all-in though. And that's very sad. There has to be more critical thinking in situations like this. Why would Assad use Chemical Weapons? It's a No-Win for him. So it's highly unlikely it happened. It makes no sense. There is no reason to go to War with Syria. Period, end of story.


----------



## francoHFW

Vox said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 62 to zip? *Holy shit*. That has never happened on USMB before on a political issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, this is an exemplary bipartisanship ever
> 
> 70 to zip
Click to expand...


It's a stupid OP and question. Nobody wants a war, just a punitive action. Well, there's probably the dupes of SOME Pub nutjob charlatan that do LOL.


----------



## paulitician

francoHFW said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 62 to zip? *Holy shit*. That has never happened on USMB before on a political issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, this is an exemplary bipartisanship ever
> 
> 70 to zip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a stupid OP and question. Nobody wants a war, just a punitive action. Well, there's probably the dupes of SOME Pub nutjob charlatan that do LOL.
Click to expand...


You sound like you want War. Am i mistaken?


----------



## blackhawk

Were not going to war in Syria we launch some cruise missiles which will have minimal to no impact on the overall war in Syria but will give Obama cover for his red line comment then we will call it a day.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Assad should not be taken out, if he is guilty he should be brought up on war crimes.
2. To blow his ass up would not be *Just*.
3. Obama better sit back and do *Nothing*.
4. If Obama attacks he should be brought up on war crimes too.
5. Trial by jury or court, not trial by *bomb squad*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## skye

Also as it has been said:

* "The purpose of intervention in Syria, at this point, will not be to turn the tide of the war against Assads favor. It will be to underline a fundamental international norm set forth by the West: the world will not tolerate the use of WMD. Sovereignty is a responsibility, they will assert, and not a right."   *


----------



## dilloduck

Camp said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny that so few people understand what is going on and don't realize the two biggest terrorist organizations that threaten the USA (al Qaeda) and it's interest (Hezbolla vs. Israel) have been manipulated into a war with each other, with Iran on the side of Hezbolla and the Sunni Arab states on the side of al Qaeda because they are Sunni. Assad is now dependent on Iran and Hezbolla for support. The rebels are made up of lots of different groups and al Qaeda is just one faction. So, the enemys of the USA and Israel are locked in battle, Shite vs. Sunni, muslim vs. muslim. Each in it's own Holy War against the other. Assad, with the use of internationaly forbidden chemical weapons could end the war or at least neutralize it. That would mean victory for Syria and Iran and defeat for al Qaeda on the SYRIAN BATTTLEFIELD. But they would just pop up somewhere else. The really bad danger with the gas attacks is that it can neutralize or defeat the moderate Sunni forces that are willing to work with the west in the total defeat of al Qaeda when the dust settles on the Syrian battlefield. So, the gas attacks can be a game changer and that is why they need to be stopped. The longer the battles between the terrorist groups go on, the better. They are draining resources and sending their best fighters to die in Syria. The moderate forces are holding back and watching, waiting and preparing. A few cruise missiles may be all that is needed to bring the war back into a nice slow war of attrition between our enemies. And it wouldn't hurt to to neuter the Russians too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe they outta just go ahead and do that instead of trying to bullshit the world about some gas attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have access to Russian news broadcast. The real stuff, not the english translation stuff. My Russian friends tell me they are admitting and confirming the gas attacks, but claiming it came from the rebel forces and is a set-up to get western support. It's not hard to confirm a gas attack. It kills the animals as well as the people. Once you find the outer perimeter of dead birds, dogs, rats, etc. you can determine the size of the ordinence. Once you decide the size of the ordinence you look for the point of impact. With that data you can determine the delivery system. Once you determine the delivery system you can ascertain who has that type of system, or who had the ability to deliver ordinence of that size. Ofcourse if both sides have the capibility, you are nowhere, unless you are able to determine the angle of impact and hence, which direction it came from. But if only one side has the ability, even when certain tech data is lacking, you have your proof.
Click to expand...


both sides have ability. The gas story is a cover anyway. People just want Assad gone.


----------



## francoHFW

I think it'll take a few more days to get enough proof to go ahead...

 and he won't be lying like Booosh and Cheney. Assad had done this several times before (or maybe 30 times according to the rebels, is the only person who has these weapons,and thought he could get away with anything, or one of generals did.


----------



## francoHFW

Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.


----------



## Clementine

The T said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Obama is making a unilateral decision without involving congress. Gee, he used to criticize this sort of thing, but suddenly it's okay.
> 
> It needs to be openly discussed. If we get involved in any way, there needs to be a clear reason, a clear goal and approval of congress. I don't give a shit what the U.N. thinks, but our allies, especially those in Arab countries need to have our backs. Why aren't they already taking action?
> 
> I don't trust Obama. I think the only reason he wants to get involved is to help his dismal approval rating. His decisions on foreign policy thus far have been in favor of some of the radical Muslims. I still think his loyalties lie in places other than the U.S.
> 
> I think Obama will have a lot of opposition, including Dems, if he just decides to do this on his own. Of course, he is a loner anyway and not a good team player.
> 
> 
> 
> If he does this unilaterally? TIME to Impeach his ass. FINAL STRAW...
Click to expand...


I agree.    I think we are being goaded into a war and we shouldn't fall for it.   It's likely the Muslim Brotherhood will be the winners again.   I swear Obama is hellbent on helping them gain power.    He can't get over them losing Egypt.   

I also find it unsettling that the latest deaths are the only ones this administration has expressed shock at.   How many millions have been slaughtered in those countries with nary a blink from the left and suddenly we must step in and help?    They are sure chemical weapons were used, just as we were sure Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, but somehow this time it's different as far as Obama is concerned.  He hasn't explained how it would be in the best interest of the U.S. and our allies for us to step in and fight.   And there are no plans for a regime change, so what the hell is the point?    If we're going to strike people for being evil, are we sending some drones to drop bombs on the Muslim Brotherhood?

Obama and Kerry are going on and on about the horrible atrocity, as if there has been nothing like it before.   I didn't see this sort of grief from the left after 9/11.    I hate seeing innocents killed, but don't see how sending our sons and daughters to slaughter is going to help Syria.   Obama promised no troops on the ground, but we all know how good his promises aren't.     

The opinion of the people and congress carry no weight with Obama.   I hope even the Dems turn against him for this stupid move if he goes through with this.


----------



## dilloduck

francoHFW said:


> Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.



Well that's stupid. The rebels will need it after they take over.


----------



## paulitician

francoHFW said:


> Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.



Silly Warmonger.


----------



## Vox

francoHFW said:


> The Arab League says Assad did it, France, UK and NATO said he did it, only Putin, China and god knows who, Beck? says he didn't. And this shall not pass. This ain't chickenhawk Raygun and Saddam. This president has principles, not BS. The GOP will bitch to high heaven no matter what he does (except McCain maybe, the only man they have  left LOL). What a bunch of a-holes.



We have the FIRST "yes" form the hater dupe libtard war monger a.k.a. francoHFW


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,



1. If Obama shoots one fucking missile, I want war criminal charges filed asap!
2. McCain can go an fuck himself, the liitle war monger!!!!



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## paulitician

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If Obama shoot one missile, I want war criminal charges filed asap!
> 2. McCain can go an fuck himself, the liitle war monger!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



Yup.


----------



## paulitician

Wow, possibly the most one-sided Poll i've ever seen here at USMB. Dare i say, even looks a bit Bi-Partisan. Hmm?


----------



## JWBooth




----------



## blackhawk

Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.

Would call it a war if it was being done by a Republican President?


----------



## Vox

blackhawk said:


> Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.
> 
> Would call it a war if it was being done by a Republican President?



what else do you expect from the hater dupe libtard?

he is the only one who voted "yes"


----------



## Freewill

First of all this is not like Iraq and Afghanistan which DID pose a threat to American interests.

Second, I voted no as I would have voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thridly, we can't let ANY president decide this, it is Congress' job to wage war as they voted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Think about this folks.  As much as I hated the Iraq war at least it was voted on by Congress.  Obama now has interjected America into Lybia and now may interject the military into Syria.  In my opinion just because ground troops are not sent in does not give the president card blanc to wage war especially when the situation has time to be debated as does Syria. 

So not only NO but HELL NO.


----------



## The Rabbi

Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.

Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions?  He lied.


----------



## paulitician

Freewill said:


> First of all this is not like Iraq and Afghanistan which DID pose a threat to American interests.
> 
> Second, I voted no as I would have voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Thridly, we can't let ANY president decide this, it is Congress' job to wage war as they voted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
> 
> Think about this folks.  As much as I hated the Iraq war at least it was voted on by Congress.  Obama now has interjected America into Lybia and now may interject the military into Syria.  In my opinion just because ground troops are not sent in does not give the president card blanc to wage war especially when the situation has time to be debated as does Syria.
> 
> So not only NO but HELL NO.



Yes, obviously it should be taken up by Congress. Anything short of that, is unacceptable. Valid reasons for legal Declaration of War should be debated.


----------



## Freewill

paulitician said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all this is not like Iraq and Afghanistan which DID pose a threat to American interests.
> 
> Second, I voted no as I would have voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Thridly, we can't let ANY president decide this, it is Congress' job to wage war as they voted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
> 
> Think about this folks.  As much as I hated the Iraq war at least it was voted on by Congress.  Obama now has interjected America into Lybia and now may interject the military into Syria.  In my opinion just because ground troops are not sent in does not give the president card blanc to wage war especially when the situation has time to be debated as does Syria.
> 
> So not only NO but HELL NO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, obviously it should be taken up by Congress. Anything short of that, is unacceptable. Valid reasons for legal Declaration of War should be debated.
Click to expand...


I doubt there would be an actual Declaration of War more like what happen with Iraq.  unlike what Clinton did in his 72 days of terror bombing of Serbia and Obama has already done in Libya.


----------



## The Rabbi

The president as COmmander in Chief has broad latitude here.  This is a long standing precedent.


----------



## Freewill

The Rabbi said:


> Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
> It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.
> 
> Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions?  He lied.



Don't be too sure.  What I think could happen and I thought this all along.  I think Obama may wish to flex his muscles.  Prove he is a man by bombing the crap out of Syria.  There is a chance he may go overboard and provoke another cold war or worse.  Or should I say a colder war?


----------



## Freewill

The Rabbi said:


> The president as COmmander in Chief has broad latitude here.  This is a long standing precedent.



Then why did Bush, and I believe both Bush's, both with Congress at all?


----------



## The Rabbi

Freewill said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
> It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.
> 
> Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions?  He lied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be too sure.  What I think could happen and I thought this all along.  I think Obama may wish to flex his muscles.  Prove he is a man by bombing the crap out of Syria.  There is a chance he may go overboard and provoke another cold war or worse.  Or should I say a colder war?
Click to expand...


Absolutelu nothing in his history shows this is likely.  He is a gutless coward unsure of himself and will do the minimum necessary so he can spin that he followed through on his word.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.


----------



## dilloduck

LordBrownTrout said:


> Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.



Well that's not too much to ask after everyone else has done the heavy lifting.


----------



## Kondor3

The Rabbi said:


> The president as COmmander in Chief has broad latitude here.  This is a long standing precedent.


True.

But it was not always thus, or, at least, it was not commonplace, and the 'usual' road to war.

Perhaps it is time to strip the President of his Undeclared War Powers, in some way, so as to force a Declaration of War from Congress?

Then again, aren't there circumstances under which there is no time to convene Congress, and, consequently, Congress has delegated some of its powers to the Executive?

The Congressional Declaration of War was crafted in another century, with older technologies and modes of travel in mind.

Perhaps there is some way to find a middle ground?

Give the President X-number-of-days of carte blanche authority to engage in warfare, after which he must go to Congress, for asset to continue, or to shut it down?

Ooooops...  wait... we already HAVE something like that, don't we?

Makes sense.

When Congress is not in session, and you've got an incoming ICBM that is gonna hit in 20 minutes, there's no time to call Congress back into session and let 'em vote on it.

Perhaps there is some way to 'tweak' what we already have, to give Congress more control, while preserving a PRACTICAL freedom of action for the POTUS?

Or, perhaps, what we have now is just fine... it's just that we haven't done a very good job of entrusting it to worthies, over the past few decades?


----------



## whitehall

Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

dilloduck said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's not too much to ask after everyone else has done the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean. Syria and Iran may strike Israel if we fire on Syria. Its not going to be a pretty situation.


----------



## paulitician

whitehall said:


> Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?



I don't think it's all that complicated. And i certainly don't think it's insulting to ask the question. Do you want War with Syria or not? Go with your gut and answer.


----------



## Kondor3

whitehall said:


> Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?



Disagree.

We know the 'who'... Assad, and the existing Syrian government (in effect, taking the side of the anti-government forces).

War may take many forms and can be narrow and contained or expansive and inclusive.

The question is quite eloquent in its simplicity.

Translation:

"_Are you in favor of military intervention against Syria or not?_"

The complexities and subtleties and nuances can be dealt with later.

But first, comes the question...

"Should we?"

Which leaves plenty of time for...

"How?"

...after it has been determined that SOME kind of intervention should or should not be attempted.

One thing at a time.

Logical progression.

The question, and its phrasing, was entirely legitimate, and is serving its purpose admirably.

Everybody beyond the 4th or 5th grade understood what was meant (a broad, sweeping question regarding ANY sort of intervention)...

At least everybody beyond that level that isn't crippled by an over-reliance upon Literalism...

Anybody who's followed the story in even a lightweight and haphazard fashion already has at least some clue about what it at stake and who the major parties are and the destabilization of the region and varying possible outcomes of any intervention...

Save the subtleties and nuances for Round II...


----------



## Camp

Bush should have handled Syria when they sent the first bus load of Syrian and foriegn fighters across their border to join the insurgents and kill Americans. Not like it was done in secret. It was on the cover of TIME and in every newspaper in America. Can't believe people whine about Libya. That asshole that is now dead knocked down a plane full of Americans over England and Ronnie bombed his tent. That was it. He bombed a tent. Those Hezbolla dudes are the ones that bombed the Marine Baracks and killed over 240 Marines, being guarded by Marines with empty weapons as per the Commander in Chiefs orders. No retribution. No payback.  Let those Hezbolla soldiers die on the battlefield and let the Syrian Shites die with them. Let them be killed by Sunni fighters and let lots of Jihad Sunni fighters die also. If a few missile strikes will help that process along, lets dance in the streets, the way the Syrians did after 9/11.


----------



## antiquity

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



I vote no...let the Arab League handle it, its their territory.


----------



## Kondor3

antiquity said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I vote no...let the Arab League handle it, its their territory.
Click to expand...


With all respect... the Arab League couldn't find its own ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors... they'd screw-up a two-car funeral...

And they've been absolutely and positively useless as a regional peacekeeping force, never mind going up against somebody with balls and a sizable Army like Syria's Assad, in open-daylight warfare...

And they sure-as-hell don't have any credibility as peace-brokers, on the flip side of that coin...

I'm not saying that we or anybody else should step into the League's shoes, to fill that vacuum...

I'm just saying that they're friggin' useless, and that they're not the answer, if there is one...


----------



## whitehall

paulitician said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's all that complicated. And i certainly don't think it's insulting to ask the question. Do you want War with Syria or not? Go with your gut and answer.
Click to expand...


"Go with your gut" when war isn't defined or the enemy isn't identified? War in Iraq was relatively clear cut. Saddam violated perhaps a hundred UN sanctions and the UN (and congress) authorized intervention. Bill Clinton and the best intelligence at the time indicated that Saddam was developing WMD's. President Bush gave Saddam a year to comply (and ship the WMD technology to Iran?). Should we land in Syria with tanks and artillery or should we launch cruise missiles? Maybe we should send a couple of Seal teams in to capture somebody. They are acts of war and vastly different. Who should we target? The muslem brotherhood or the regime? What next?


----------



## Kondor3

*Arab League Rejects Attack Against Syria*

_New York Times --- By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and MARK LANDLER --- Published: August 27, 2013
_
CAIRO  *The leaders of the Arab world on Tuesda*y blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people last week, but *declined to back a retaliatory military strike, leaving President Obama without the broad regional support he had for his last military intervention in the Middle East, in Libya in 2011.*

While the Obama administration has robust European backing and more muted Arab support for a strike on Syria, the position of the Arab League and the *unlikelihood of securing authorization from the United Nations Security Council* complicate the legal and diplomatic case for the White House.

The White House said Tuesday that there was no doubt that President Bashar al-Assads government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack  an assessment shared by Britain, France and other allies  but it has yet to make clear if it has any intelligence directly linking Mr. Assad to the attack. The administration said it planned to provide intelligence on the attack later this week.

As Mr. Obama sought to shore up international support for military action, *telephoning Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain*, administration *officials said they did not regard the lack of an imprimatur from the Security Council or the Arab League as insurmountable hurdles*, given the carnage last week.

*Administration officials have declined to spell out the legal justification that Mr. Obama would use in ordering a strike*, beyond saying that the large-scale use of chemical weapons violates international norms. But officials said he could draw on a range of treaties and statutes, from the Geneva Conventions to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. Obama, they said, could also cite the need to protect a vulnerable population, as his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, did in ordering NATOs 78-day air campaign on Kosovo in 1999. Or he could invoke the principle of responsibility to protect, which some officials cited to justify the American-led bombing campaign in Libya.

There is no doubt here that chemical weapons were used on a massive scale on Aug. 21 outside of Damascus, said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney. There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 outside of Damascus.

A number of nations in Europe and the Middle East, along with several humanitarian organizations, have joined the United States in the assessment. But with* the specter of the faulty intelligence assessments* before the Iraq war still hanging over American decision making, and with polls showing that *only a small fraction of the American public supports military intervention in Syria*, some officials in Washington realize that there needs to be some kind of a public presentation making the case for war.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/arab-league-rejects-attack-against-syria.html?_r=0


----------



## Connery

Under the circumstances Yes. Further, there is precedent, law and good reason to join in with NATO allies and take care of this situation.


----------



## Camp

For all those that imagine the President doesn't have authorty to strike, or could be impeached if he did, mull on this. Turkey is a member of NATO and shares a border with Syria. Missile strikes and artilery rounds have been launched in the past from Syria into Turkey. America, as part of NATO responded by placing a number of Patriot Missile Batterys on the Turkish/Syrian border. That means that American military personel are in striking range of illegal WMD's known and admitted by Syria to be in the Syrian arsonal. The President has the legal and moral obligation to protect our troops. When Syria decided to implement the use of there weapon, they indeed crossed a red line. They gave the USA legal authority to defend themselves against these weapons, including pre-emptive strikes.


----------



## Circe

francoHFW said:


> War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.



I see most people don't believe normalizing the use of poison gas is the reason, but I believe it is. 

Consider: poison gas is so yucky a death, a weapon, that it gives war a bad name. It would be harder to fight wars, to get soldiers volunteering, if gas is a weapon they have to expect. So much for fresh-faced young Americans in the Join The Army ads --- it would only be those evil monster gas masks. They need to preserve warfighting ability.


----------



## francoHFW

Arab League must want proof now- this won't happen tonight, as I said...


Momentum Grows for Military Action Against Syria - ABC News
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syria-defend-attack-20078364
7 hours ago ... The Arab League also threw its weight behind calls for punitive action, blaming 
the Syrian government for the attack and calling for those ...


----------



## francoHFW

It's against the Geneva Convention, in short...


----------



## thereisnospoon

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



NO EFFING WAY..
We have NO BUSINESS sending one soldier to Syria...
Those people do not want us there. They don't even want our money. Same for Egypt.
We send billions. They spit at us, burn our flag and wish death upon us.
What more do those knuckleheads in Washington have to be told before they get the message.


----------



## Circe

RandallFlagg said:


> Barry's poll numbers are now down around 35%........



43.8 according to RealClearPolitics, but that is quite low -- I had no idea his numbers had gone down so low! Imagine what will happen if his war goes badly.....


----------



## Wildman

*absolutely positively fucking* *NO !!*

but we know that fucking mulatto muslime will sacrifice our good Christian men to help his Al Qweerda brotherhood buddies. 

personally i can not think of any thing better than having muslimes killing other muslimes.  ...


----------



## MikeK

Borillar said:


> Not only no, but fuck no!  There is nothing to be gained by military adventurism in Syria, only loss.


There is much to be gained from it -- by the Military Industrial Complex.  And therein lies the tale.  

It really is that simple.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

Listen ............... just because the Syrian president is backed by Russians, and in Russian culture MEN carry a purse,  doesn't mean we should stand our ground and shove their purses up their asses ........ just because we can .............. this sends the wrong message to all.


----------



## Wildman

syrenn said:


> meh.... i have no problem with them killing each other off. Less of them to hate us.



Dear young lady, your avatar photos are very  TITillating


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A war to support obama's lies?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a partisan moron.
Click to expand...


UN Official, Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad?s Army | Live Trading News


----------



## TemplarKormac

Simply put, no. But I will gladly sit by and watch as Obama's own party eats him alive for it.

And when my children ask me 10 years down the road, "Daddy why are we still at war with Syria?"

I'll tell them the story of how a president named Obama got mad at Bush for Iraq and for Afghanistan, but started that darned war in Syria, because they crossed a frickkun red line.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.



I say maybe and for the following reasons.

The entire world has agreed that the use of chemical weapons is forbidden. The US really screwed the pooch during the Iraq/Iran war and this is the result. If this gets a pass, more and more chemical weapons will be used. They are cheap and very effective. They also leave a really big mess.

That posted, the President should follow the Constitution on this one.

He should wait until the UN inspections are done. If they show that Chemical Weapons were used, he should come up with a plan for limited action with very specific goals and definable benchmarks.

Once done, he should go to congress and present the case for war..allow robust debate and abide by their decision.


----------



## Brain357

It's nice to see something that at least the great majority of people here can agree on.  Didn't think that was possible.


----------



## AceRothstein

No, our tinkering in that area of the world has not led to any positive outcomes.

We supported bin Laden in the 80's in Afghanistan, that came back to bite us in the ass.  Afghanistan is worse off now than it was 40 years ago.
We fucked around in Iran for 30 years and they have been one of our biggest adversaries since.
Our dealings in Iraq over the last 30 years have left that place on the verge of civil war today.
We've been striking Yemen with drones since the Bush days and it has turned into a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
Then you have Lebanon, Libya and Somalia to go along with these.

Let's stay the fuck out of it.


----------



## deltex1

So far Syria has  cost me 20k this week...lets get on with it...whatever it is,


----------



## JoeB131

tinydancer said:


> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?



Because Assad's a murdering asshole?  

I think going in would be a bad idea.  Because either our attacks will have no effect, in which case, our ability to threaten people with force will be diminished.  

Or worse, it might actually work.  Then what?  The Jihadists win and Turkey expands its influence in the region.


----------



## JoeB131

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say maybe and for the following reasons.
> 
> The entire world has agreed that the use of chemical weapons is forbidden. The US really screwed the pooch during the Iraq/Iran war and this is the result. If this gets a pass, more and more chemical weapons will be used. They are cheap and very effective. They also leave a really big mess.
> 
> That posted, the President should follow the Constitution on this one.
> 
> He should wait until the UN inspections are done. If they show that Chemical Weapons were used, he should come up with a plan for limited action with very specific goals and definable benchmarks.
> 
> Once done, he should go to congress and present the case for war..allow robust debate and abide by their decision.
Click to expand...


This would be the same Congress that voted for War with Iraq before it was against it? 

Sorry, I am against this because even though the use of Chemical Weapons is bad, it is also an internal matter.  

And frankly, it isn't like there are a bunch of freedom fighters over there.  The guys fighting Assad are just as bad as he is, maybe worse.  And definitely aligned with Al Qaeda. 

Also, on Chemical Weapons, the "Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914",  it is disingenous to lump them in with Nuclear and Biological weapons.  But we do.  And when someone uses them, we scream "WMD!!!!"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A war to support obama's lies?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a partisan moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN Official, Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad?s Army | Live Trading News
Click to expand...




> Testimony from victims now strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian  government, that used Sarin Nerve Gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior UN diplomat said Monday.
> Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were strong, concrete  suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof, that rebels seeking to oust  Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used  the nerve agent.



Which is what some of us have been saying since the leaked emails from January. Notice no MS "news" outlets in America have repeated this? Gee, I wonder why......


----------



## Mac1958

.

I'm seeing a lot of articles that make military action seem inevitable.

Just as with Iraq, I'm waving my arms, saying "please don't do this".

Doesn't seem to be working.  Again.

.


----------



## theHawk

I'd fully support carpet bombing the entire middle east, but to just bomb Syria for the purpose of helping AQ/MB to gain control ---fuck no.


----------



## paulitician

The Government/Media Complex has its work cut out for it on this one. This War is not currently being supported by the People. They're gonna have to really ramp up that War Propaganda. They have to move those Poll numbers up. So look for 'Assad = Hitler' by the end of the week. Unfortunately, they've proven it works. Heavy saturation of War Propaganda does move Polls in support of Wars. But i guess we'll see if the People buy it this time. Stay tuned.


----------



## deltex1

Tensions rising
Obabble monitoring
Russia warning
China objecting
Iran threatening
Arab world divided
Us military ready to go.


The world under Obabble...not a satisfactory situation.


----------



## The Rabbi

deltex1 said:


> Tensions rising
> Obabble monitoring
> Russia warning
> China objecting
> Iran threatening
> Arab world divided
> Us military ready to go.
> 
> 
> The world under Obabble...not a satisfactory situation.



The result of Obama's naive "outreach to the Muslim world" and "reset with Russia".


----------



## Indofred

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



It probably will but has anyone considered sending this URL to Obama and see if he's after short term bribes from arms dealers or long term votes from Americans?


----------



## JoeB131

Indofred said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It probably will but has anyone considered sending this URL to Obama and see if he's after short term bribes from arms dealers or long term votes from Americans?
Click to expand...


I don't think it's anything more complicated that he's made a threat and now he has to make good on it.


----------



## Sallow

JoeB131 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say maybe and for the following reasons.
> 
> The entire world has agreed that the use of chemical weapons is forbidden. The US really screwed the pooch during the Iraq/Iran war and this is the result. If this gets a pass, more and more chemical weapons will be used. They are cheap and very effective. They also leave a really big mess.
> 
> That posted, the President should follow the Constitution on this one.
> 
> He should wait until the UN inspections are done. If they show that Chemical Weapons were used, he should come up with a plan for limited action with very specific goals and definable benchmarks.
> 
> Once done, he should go to congress and present the case for war..allow robust debate and abide by their decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be the same Congress that voted for War with Iraq before it was against it?
> 
> Sorry, I am against this because even though the use of Chemical Weapons is bad, it is also an internal matter.
> 
> And frankly, it isn't like there are a bunch of freedom fighters over there.  The guys fighting Assad are just as bad as he is, maybe worse.  And definitely aligned with Al Qaeda.
> 
> Also, on Chemical Weapons, the "Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914",  it is disingenous to lump them in with Nuclear and Biological weapons.  But we do.  And when someone uses them, we scream "WMD!!!!"
Click to expand...


It's not internal once they start breaking the geneva conventions and international protocol. Chem/Biological weapons aren't like Nuclear, which has a deterrence because, if used, spells the end of civilization.

We have these international protocols for a reason as well. If they are not enforced, they become meaningless.


----------



## JoeB131

The T said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Obama is making a unilateral decision without involving congress. Gee, he used to criticize this sort of thing, but suddenly it's okay.
> 
> It needs to be openly discussed. If we get involved in any way, there needs to be a clear reason, a clear goal and approval of congress. I don't give a shit what the U.N. thinks, but our allies, especially those in Arab countries need to have our backs. Why aren't they already taking action?
> 
> I don't trust Obama. I think the only reason he wants to get involved is to help his dismal approval rating. His decisions on foreign policy thus far have been in favor of some of the radical Muslims. I still think his loyalties lie in places other than the U.S.
> 
> I think Obama will have a lot of opposition, including Dems, if he just decides to do this on his own. Of course, he is a loner anyway and not a good team player.
> 
> 
> 
> If he does this unilaterally? TIME to Impeach his ass. FINAL STRAW...
Click to expand...


Again, not really.  

That horse left the barn a long time ago.  Probably when Reagan invaded Grenada without a congressional approval and no one objected.  

Since Turkey is already involved in Syria, all he has to do is invoke the NATO Charter, as Turkey is a member of NATO.


----------



## JWBooth

LordBrownTrout said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's not too much to ask after everyone else has done the heavy lifting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean. Syria and Iran may strike Israel if we fire on Syria. Its not going to be a pretty situation.
Click to expand...

The only side, party, group, faction, whatever, who stands to gain by  having the world believe that Assad is responsible are those who seek to  widen the conflict.


----------



## Sallow

The Rabbi said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tensions rising
> Obabble monitoring
> Russia warning
> China objecting
> Iran threatening
> Arab world divided
> Us military ready to go.
> 
> 
> The world under Obabble...not a satisfactory situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The result of Obama's naive "outreach to the Muslim world" and "reset with Russia".
Click to expand...


Oh really now.

I guess this has nothing to do with Bush breaking international treaties concerning anti ballistic missiles and unilaterally invading 2 middle eastern countries..right?

Add in downing a couple of Chinese fighter jets in the spy plane incident.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

UN suggests that the rebels used the gas. Meanwhile the "official narrative" seems to be hot to ignore that.

News at 11.


----------



## Circe

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tensions rising
> Obabble monitoring
> Russia warning
> China objecting
> Iran threatening
> Arab world divided
> Us military ready to go.
> 
> 
> The world under Obabble...not a satisfactory situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The result of Obama's naive "outreach to the Muslim world" and "reset with Russia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really now.
> 
> I guess this has nothing to do with Bush breaking international treaties concerning anti ballistic missiles and unilaterally invading 2 middle eastern countries..right?
> 
> Add in downing a couple of Chinese fighter jets in the spy plane incident.
Click to expand...


Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, these same people would be hysterically eager for a war on Syria and anyone gets in the way --- it would be our DUTY to go to war, lots of screeds about how awful poison gas is, many cut-and-pastes of the Wilfred Owen poem on gas from WWI.

But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly they are all peaceniks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.

Conservative speak with forked tongue.


----------



## paulitician

TakeAStepBack said:


> UN suggests that the rebels used the gas. Meanwhile the "official narrative" seems to be hot to ignore that.
> 
> News at 11.



The Sheep can only swallow one narrative. Big Brother understands that very well. Like i said, look for the Government/Media Complex to declare 'Assad = Hitler' by the end of the week. The Poll numbers showing support for this farce are in the tank. They'll have to lay the War Propaganda on pretty thick to increase the Poll numbers. Sadly, it's all so predictable. Here we go again.


----------



## theHawk

Circe said:


> Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, these same people would be hysterically eager for a war on Syria and anyone gets in the way --- it would be our DUTY to go to war, lots of screeds about how awful poison gas is, many cut-and-pastes of the Wilfred Owen poem on gas from WWI.
> 
> But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly they are all peaceniks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
> 
> Conservative speak with forked tongue.



Fixed:

_Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, the progressives would be hysterically eager to protest a war on Syria and anyone that supports it--- it would be our DUTY to protest, lots of screeds about how awful war is, many cut-and-pastes of the of the phoney Iraq WMD claims.

But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly we are all warhawks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.

Progressives speak with forked tongue_


----------



## Kondor3

Karma's a bitch.

It cuts both ways.

It was the Pubs turn in the barrel in 2003.

It's the Dems turn in the barrel in 2013.

With the American People caught in the middle, between the wing-nuts on both ends of the spectrum.

Both parties have plenty of blood on their hands... figuratively, and literally.

Opposite sides of the same, thin, worn-out old coin.


----------



## AceRothstein

theHawk said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, these same people would be hysterically eager for a war on Syria and anyone gets in the way --- it would be our DUTY to go to war, lots of screeds about how awful poison gas is, many cut-and-pastes of the Wilfred Owen poem on gas from WWI.
> 
> But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly they are all peaceniks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
> 
> Conservative speak with forked tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed:
> 
> _Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, the progressives would be hysterically eager to protest a war on Syria and anyone that supports it--- it would be our DUTY to protest, lots of screeds about how awful war is, many cut-and-pastes of the of the phoney Iraq WMD claims.
> 
> But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly we are all warhawks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
> 
> Progressives speak with forked tongue_
Click to expand...


Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.


----------



## The Rabbi

AceRothstein said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, these same people would be hysterically eager for a war on Syria and anyone gets in the way --- it would be our DUTY to go to war, lots of screeds about how awful poison gas is, many cut-and-pastes of the Wilfred Owen poem on gas from WWI.
> 
> But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly they are all peaceniks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
> 
> Conservative speak with forked tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed:
> 
> _Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, the progressives would be hysterically eager to protest a war on Syria and anyone that supports it--- it would be our DUTY to protest, lots of screeds about how awful war is, many cut-and-pastes of the of the phoney Iraq WMD claims.
> 
> But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly we are all warhawks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
> 
> Progressives speak with forked tongue_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.
Click to expand...


So where are all the protests, like this one?


----------



## AceRothstein

The Rabbi said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed:
> 
> _Yeah, if a Republican adminstration were in the White House, the progressives would be hysterically eager to protest a war on Syria and anyone that supports it--- it would be our DUTY to protest, lots of screeds about how awful war is, many cut-and-pastes of the of the phoney Iraq WMD claims.
> 
> But since a Dem is in the White House, suddenly we are all warhawks. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
> 
> Progressives speak with forked tongue_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are all the protests, like this one?
Click to expand...


There are a few differences.

1. The administration has been seriously talking about bombing Syria for just a few days.  The march to war with Iraq was over a multi-month period in which the protests grew.
2. The administration is not talking about a full on invasion and occupation in Syria.  Big difference.

That being said, I think we need need to stay the fuck out of this.


----------



## Circe

AceRothstein said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where are all the protests, like this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a few differences.
> 
> 1. The administration has been seriously talking about bombing Syria for just a few days.  The march to war with Iraq was over a multi-month period in which the protests grew.
> 2. The administration is not talking about a full on invasion and occupation in Syria.  Big difference.
> 
> That being said, I think we need need to stay the fuck out of this.
Click to expand...



All the same, Obama better get on with it, because you are right that it IS delays that allow this sort of protest to get organized. And Russia has started delaying tactics in the UN, saying we need to get the inspectors report presented first about whether there was gas, who dunnit, etc. -- that ought to be good for a two-month delay. And the UN hierarchy like the Secretary-General is already making noises about how the U.S. has to get UN permission.

Because if the U.S. keeps not bothering with UN permission, that's exactly like poison gas use: if people keep doing it, it gets normalized and the international conventions against it don't carry any weight. If everyone disregards the UN, it no longer has any importance.


Which is WAY fine with me. I think that ship has sailed, anyway. 

Britain put this action in for a vote just now and everyone knows what will happen: Russia and probably China will vote against it, and it will happen anyway.

But I agree: he'd better do it fast, because this country is OVERWHELMINGLY against getting involved with Syria and big protests could start if there is a delay. I bet Washington knows that, good catch, Ace and Rabbi.


----------



## Circe

So to work the American character, what they need to do is strike Syria tomorrow, fast, before the war-weariness of America can be expressed in protests.

Then they need to hope for or provoke an Iranian attack on our forces, preferably, or at least on Israel. Remember the Maine! Attack in Tonkin Gulf! WMD in Iraq!! All faked to get a war going, it works.

Then if there is any attack of any sort by Iran, they can count on the gravely disunited America turning as one on Iran with a snarl. We seriously, no fooling, don't like attacks on us and will always fight that.

That worked to get us into WWI: The German foreign minister had incautiously written a coded telegram to Mexico offering to support them with weapons and anything in a war against us to distract us from the European war, and they'd help them get back the entire Southwest --- three American states. The Zimmerman Telegram was captured by the British and decoded (the man who found it leaned back in his chair, he said, knowing he had just won the war for Britain) and sent to Woodrow Wilson, presumably with a very polite message that either he could release it to the papers, or they would.

Wilson did release it to the papers, as soon as he was sworn in for a second term -- he had run on the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War," so it would have been embarrassing to release the telegram before the swearing-in. 

It was like 9/11. Fury swept the country instantly. Congress declared war on Germany inside a week.

If Iran attacks our forces, that will happen to Iran, be sure.


----------



## The Rabbi

AceRothstein said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where are all the protests, like this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a few differences.
> 
> 1. The administration has been seriously talking about bombing Syria for just a few days.  The march to war with Iraq was over a multi-month period in which the protests grew.
> 2. The administration is not talking about a full on invasion and occupation in Syria.  Big difference.
> 
> That being said, I think we need need to stay the fuck out of this.
Click to expand...


Protests can be organized in just a few days.  Where is the march on washington by liberals to protest this?
Bush didnt do anything on Darfur and the left protested that.


----------



## Circe

The Rabbi said:


> Protests can be organized in just a few days.  Where is the march on washington by liberals to protest this?
> Bush didnt do anything on Darfur and the left protested that.




You know the answer to that. People are on the side of their partisan in the White House, that's all. If their guy is in the White House, they want whatever he wants. What, are you expecting people to be morally consistent and non-partisan??

Dream on.


----------



## Kondor3

Circe said:


> "..._Because if the U.S. keeps not bothering with UN permission, that's exactly like poison gas use: if people keep doing it, it gets normalized and the international conventions against it don't carry any weight. If everyone disregards the UN, it no longer has any importance_..."


The US never HAS 'obeyed' the UN.

In truth, with respect to so many things, the UN is the bitch of the US.

And, when it doesn't give the US what it wants, the US ignores the UN and proceeds, anyway.

The UN always has been an Old Ladies Debating Society and Neutral Talking Ground, without any real teeth.

That has a lot to do with the way the body is structured and the primacy of the Security Council and the Single Veto-Vote Power and the inevitable factions that crystallized within it.

It's greatest value (and that's marginal, but better than nothing) is that it serves as a place for everyone to safely come together to talk things out, before they decide to fight.

Sometimes, a brawl can be avoided, although that always has been a rare outcome.

And, of course, various subordinate agencies do a great deal of good, fueled and funded by the world collective, with respect to hunger and health and other peaceful concerns.

But, as a reliable mechanism for stopping wars, or reining-in Superpower A or B, it's always been more joke than reality, and the same holds true today.

IMHO...


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> Pretty funny that so few people understand what is going on and don't realize the two biggest terrorist organizations that threaten the USA (al Qaeda) and it's interest (Hezbolla vs. Israel) have been manipulated into a war with each other, with Iran on the side of Hezbolla and the Sunni Arab states on the side of al Qaeda because they are Sunni. Assad is now dependent on Iran and Hezbolla for support. The rebels are made up of lots of different groups and al Qaeda is just one faction. So, the enemys of the USA and Israel are locked in battle, Shite vs. Sunni, muslim vs. muslim. Each in it's own Holy War against the other. Assad, with the use of internationaly forbidden chemical weapons could end the war or at least neutralize it. That would mean victory for Syria and Iran and defeat for al Qaeda on the SYRIAN BATTTLEFIELD. But they would just pop up somewhere else. The really bad danger with the gas attacks is that it can neutralize or defeat the moderate Sunni forces that are willing to work with the west in the total defeat of al Qaeda when the dust settles on the Syrian battlefield. So, the gas attacks can be a game changer and that is why they need to be stopped. The longer the battles between the terrorist groups go on, the better. They are draining resources and sending their best fighters to die in Syria. The moderate forces are holding back and watching, waiting and preparing. A few cruise missiles may be all that is needed to bring the war back into a nice slow war of attrition between our enemies. And it wouldn't hurt to to neuter the Russians too.



Russian are being neutered at this moment. Navy is pulling out and port being closed. All Russians leaving Syria. Two jet loads already left. Two supply ships turned around and returning home. Russians have informed Syria that all contracts and agreements for re-supply and further weapons and munition deliverys are null and void. USA forces Russia to back down and vacate the area. The black guy in the White House don't bluff and he don't get bluffed. Russia neutered.


----------



## Trajan

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tensions rising
> Obabble monitoring
> Russia warning
> China objecting
> Iran threatening
> Arab world divided
> Us military ready to go.
> 
> 
> The world under Obabble...not a satisfactory situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The result of Obama's naive "outreach to the Muslim world" and "reset with Russia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really now.
> 
> I guess this has nothing to do with Bush breaking international treaties concerning anti ballistic missiles and unilaterally invading 2 middle eastern countries..right?
> 
> Add in downing a couple of Chinese fighter jets in the spy plane incident.
Click to expand...



up your meds yo, open that drip as wide as it'll go...wtf does that gobbledygook mean or have to do with Obama having no FP to start with and blowing up what little he tried to cobble together?


----------



## The Rabbi

Trajan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The result of Obama's naive "outreach to the Muslim world" and "reset with Russia".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really now.
> 
> I guess this has nothing to do with Bush breaking international treaties concerning anti ballistic missiles and unilaterally invading 2 middle eastern countries..right?
> 
> Add in downing a couple of Chinese fighter jets in the spy plane incident.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> up your meds yo, open that dripm as wdie as it'll go...wtf does that gobbledygook mean or have to do with Obama having no FP to start with and blowing up what little he tried to cobble together?
Click to expand...


It has to be Bush's fault.  Heck if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq then Syria would never have gotten their WMD to use on their own people.
See, it is all Bush's fault!


----------



## RandallFlagg

The Rabbi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really now.
> 
> I guess this has nothing to do with Bush breaking international treaties concerning anti ballistic missiles and unilaterally invading 2 middle eastern countries..right?
> 
> Add in downing a couple of Chinese fighter jets in the spy plane incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> up your meds yo, open that dripm as wdie as it'll go...wtf does that gobbledygook mean or have to do with Obama having no FP to start with and blowing up what little he tried to cobble together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to be Bush's fault.  Heck if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq then Syria would never have gotten their WMD to use on their own people.
> See, it is all Bush's fault!
Click to expand...


Interesting. Let's explore that for a second. Bush went to Iraq because they had stockpiles of chemical weapons - but they didn't (you and I know that Hussein merely shipped them out to Syria for "safekeeping") according to the left, so Bush lied. Now, Syria is using Iraq's chemical weapons and it's STILL Bush's fault.

So, basically, the left is saying that it's STILL Bush's fault because Iraq DIDN'T have CBR capabilities (which made Bush a liar and a war monger) and It's Bush's fault NOW because Syria has the weapons that USED to be in Iraq that were lied about by Bush so, in reality, because Bush lied, it was Bush's fault then and because the weapons were moved to Syria so it's Bush's fault because there actually WERE WMDs but no there weren't because Bush lied.......


Get it!?!


----------



## NLT

Let them kill each other...let Allah sort them out.


----------



## antiquity

AceRothstein said:


> Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.



According to the OP poll conservative support for attacking Syria isn't either. But when did Obama ever care about public support of his policies.


----------



## B. Kidd

Camp said:


> Russian are being neutered at this moment. Navy is pulling out and port being closed. All Russians leaving Syria. Two jet loads already left. Two supply ships turned around and returning home. Russians have informed Syria that all contracts and agreements for re-supply and further weapons and munition deliverys are null and void. USA forces Russia to back down and vacate the area. The black guy in the White House don't bluff and he don't get bluffed. Russia neutered.




Are you talking about the neutered Russia that has at least three new Borei class nuclear submarines operational; possessing a next-gen nuclear reactor that is almost noiseless, can navigate autonomously for three months, carries up to 20 solid fuel ICBMs' able to overcome any prospective missle defense system?


----------



## RandallFlagg

antiquity said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive support for attacking Syria isn't all that high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the OP poll conservative support for attacking Syria isn't either. But when did Obama ever care about public support of his policies.
Click to expand...


Look, this country simply can not afford another conflict. We have been involved in War for nearly 13 years. We have service members who have spent their ENTIRE careers shuttling between Iraq and Afghanistan. This country (and more importantly this MILITARY) is war weary. These kids are tired. I served one tour of duty in combat in Vietnam. ONE. I see more cases of PTSD than I EVER saw as a returning vet from SE Asia.

I was a HUGE fan of Ronald Reagan. He got the lion's share of the credit for bringing down the Soviet Union (and rightly so). However, it really wasn't Reagan that brought them to their knees - it was Afghanistan. It decimated that country. They were never able to recover from that fiasco just like we are not recovering from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative or a liberal at this point. Everyday Americans know that we simply can't be the cops of the damn world any longer. WE deserve the right to rest. WE deserve the right to recover. WE deserve the right to have our children home. WE deserve the right for our Grandchildren to have Mom or Dad home - not screaming in the middle of the night - reliving firefights.

I think WE have earned the right to let someone else be the "policemen of the world" for a bit.


----------



## conspiracy

syrenn said:


> meh.... i have no problem with them killing each other off. Less of them to hate us.




Didn't put much thought into this, huh?


----------



## conspiracy

tinydancer said:


> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?



US wants a puppet like Karzi to pay off and do what they want. this is about multinational corporations and the american government who kills and blasts the leader and people away for special interest. the american government don't give a dam about the people, they want control, US is known for the policing of the world. they want nations to act right so that the rich heavy weights can come in and oppress and make more money off of their natural resources. then also you have israel who wants to start some shit anyways, what better way to do it.


----------



## Kondor3

conspiracy said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> meh.... i have no problem with them killing each other off. Less of them to hate us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't put much thought into this, huh?
Click to expand...


Or, alternatively, "Less is More"...

Sometimes, there is a certain eloquence in simplicity... 

This may very well prove to be one of those times...


----------



## Camp

B. Kidd said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian are being neutered at this moment. Navy is pulling out and port being closed. All Russians leaving Syria. Two jet loads already left. Two supply ships turned around and returning home. Russians have informed Syria that all contracts and agreements for re-supply and further weapons and munition deliverys are null and void. USA forces Russia to back down and vacate the area. The black guy in the White House don't bluff and he don't get bluffed. Russia neutered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the neutered Russia that has at least three new Borei class nuclear submarines operational; possessing a next-gen nuclear reactor that is almost noiseless, can navigate autonomously for three months, carries up to 20 solid fuel ICBMs' able to overcome any prospective missle defense system?
Click to expand...


Yes, same Russia, with whistles and bells. Never been a question of Russia's ability to lob nukes at us. It's called mutual destuction and it was what the cold war was all about. Yesterday these threads were full of warnings about Russia and the start of WWIII. Lots about the incompetent President and the red line. Well, Russia is no longer a threat in reqards to Syria. They quit and are fleeing the area. They are not ready to face the USA. They want nothing to do with a red line. Some people here are just so obsessed with hate that they can not bring themselves to celebrate an American victory. They refuse to recognize a game changing event because of their obsession.


----------



## Kondor3

conspiracy said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's an honest question.
> 
> Why do they want to kill Assad so badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US wants a puppet like Karzi to pay off and do what they want. this is about multinational corporations and the american government who kills and blasts the leader and people away for special interest. the american government don't give a dam about the people, they want control, US is known for the policing of the world. they want nations to act right so that the rich heavy weights can come in and oppress and make more money off of their natural resources. then also you have israel who wants to start some shit anyways, what better way to do it.
Click to expand...


Yeah...

Because we're taking sooooooooo much out of Afghanistan, aren't we?

Because we took soooooooooooo much out of Iraq, didn't we?

The only ones making money are the stockholders of the arms industry...

We aren't getting shit in return for knocking over any of these pissants...

But that's a great idea...

Let's knock over Saudi Arabia, and steal all their oil...

Not...


----------



## Kondor3

RandallFlagg said:


> "...Look, this country simply can not afford another conflict..."



This was well said... I would have tossed some Rep at you for this one as well but I just sent some across recently and have to wait a bit... but consider the wish to be the act...


----------



## B. Kidd

Camp said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian are being neutered at this moment. Navy is pulling out and port being closed. All Russians leaving Syria. Two jet loads already left. Two supply ships turned around and returning home. Russians have informed Syria that all contracts and agreements for re-supply and further weapons and munition deliverys are null and void. USA forces Russia to back down and vacate the area. The black guy in the White House don't bluff and he don't get bluffed. Russia neutered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the neutered Russia that has at least three new Borei class nuclear submarines operational; possessing a next-gen nuclear reactor that is almost noiseless, can navigate autonomously for three months, carries up to 20 solid fuel ICBMs' able to overcome any prospective missle defense system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, same Russia, with whistles and bells. Never been a question of Russia's ability to lob nukes at us. It's called mutual destuction and it was what the cold war was all about. Yesterday these threads were full of warnings about Russia and the start of WWIII. Lots about the incompetent President and the red line. Well, Russia is no longer a threat in reqards to Syria. They quit and are fleeing the area. They are not ready to face the USA. They want nothing to do with a red line. Some people here are just so obsessed with hate that they can not bring themselves to celebrate an American victory. They refuse to recognize a game changing event because of their obsession.
Click to expand...


What American victory are you talking about?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say maybe and for the following reasons.
> 
> The entire world has agreed that the use of chemical weapons is forbidden. The US really screwed the pooch during the Iraq/Iran war and this is the result. If this gets a pass, more and more chemical weapons will be used. They are cheap and very effective. They also leave a really big mess.
> 
> That posted, the President should follow the Constitution on this one.
> 
> He should wait until the UN inspections are done. If they show that Chemical Weapons were used, he should come up with a plan for limited action with very specific goals and definable benchmarks.
> 
> Once done, he should go to congress and present the case for war..allow robust debate and abide by their decision.
Click to expand...


Perhaps. Let's be real here. There is no such thing as a "limited' response.
We were in Korea for a decade. Vietnam for 15 years. Iraq for 10. Afghanistan..still there. 
I was never in support of going to Iraq with anything other than the intent of eliminating Saddam Hussein. That man was a mortal threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. He had to go. Unfortunately, we Americans have this obsession with 'nation building, 'regime change' or 'spreading democracy'.
Wars should only be fought where a nation's safety or existence is threatened or its vital national economic or security interests are under attack.
I think Syria is a 'no touch' for the US. Let them solve their own problems. If the threat of conflict spilling over Syria's borders is a threat to its neighbors, let them handle it.
We can no longer afford the cost of American lives nor can we afford the economic and fiscal damage caused by military conflict under these circumstances.
BTW, we should get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Camp said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian are being neutered at this moment. Navy is pulling out and port being closed. All Russians leaving Syria. Two jet loads already left. Two supply ships turned around and returning home. Russians have informed Syria that all contracts and agreements for re-supply and further weapons and munition deliverys are null and void. USA forces Russia to back down and vacate the area. The black guy in the White House don't bluff and he don't get bluffed. Russia neutered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the neutered Russia that has at least three new Borei class nuclear submarines operational; possessing a next-gen nuclear reactor that is almost noiseless, can navigate autonomously for three months, carries up to 20 solid fuel ICBMs' able to overcome any prospective missle defense system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, same Russia, with whistles and bells. Never been a question of Russia's ability to lob nukes at us. It's called mutual destuction and it was what the cold war was all about. Yesterday these threads were full of warnings about Russia and the start of WWIII. Lots about the incompetent President and the red line. Well, Russia is no longer a threat in reqards to Syria. They quit and are fleeing the area. They are not ready to face the USA. They want nothing to do with a red line. Some people here are just so obsessed with hate that they can not bring themselves to celebrate an American victory. They refuse to recognize a game changing event because of their obsession.
Click to expand...


The term is "mutually assured destruction".


----------



## Trajan

apparently, the operative word being apparently, obama has already tipped his hand in that he does not intend to do anything that will really effect the outcome of the regime in situ....strategically and barely tactically.....we have basically told everyone what our self imposed limitations are. 

I don't have an issue with obama exercising his exec. prerogative,  until such time as the war powers act limitations  kick in. BUT,  telegraphing what appears to be a plan that will not alter the the balance of power or military picture strategically, etc.....I don't see the point.


----------



## The T

Trajan said:


> apparently, the operative word being apparently, obama has already tipped his hand in that he does not intend to do anything that will really effect the outcome of the regime in situ....strategically and barely tactically.....we have basically told everyone what our self imposed limitations are.
> 
> I don't have an issue with obama exercising his exec. prerogative, until such time as the war powers act limitations kick in. BUT, telegraphing what appears to be a plan that will not alter the the balance of power or military picture strategically, etc.....I don't see the point.


Why telegraph your plan to those you are going to attack? I never got the gist of that from the left, and they do it every time.


----------



## Trajan

The T said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, the operative word being apparently, obama has already tipped his hand in that he does not intend to do anything that will really effect the outcome of the regime in situ....strategically and barely tactically.....we have basically told everyone what our self imposed limitations are.
> 
> I don't have an issue with obama exercising his exec. prerogative, until such time as the war powers act limitations kick in. BUT, telegraphing what appears to be a plan that will not alter the the balance of power or military picture strategically, etc.....I don't see the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why telegraph your plan to those you are going to attack? I never got the gist of that from the left, and they do it every time.
Click to expand...


beats me. looking back Powell advertised the plan to take down Saddams army in gulf war 1, I know we had a huge preponderance of force etc. but still......I don't get it.


----------



## The T

Trajan said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, the operative word being apparently, obama has already tipped his hand in that he does not intend to do anything that will really effect the outcome of the regime in situ....strategically and barely tactically.....we have basically told everyone what our self imposed limitations are.
> 
> I don't have an issue with obama exercising his exec. prerogative, until such time as the war powers act limitations kick in. BUT, telegraphing what appears to be a plan that will not alter the the balance of power or military picture strategically, etc.....I don't see the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why telegraph your plan to those you are going to attack? I never got the gist of that from the left, and they do it every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> beats me. looking back Powell advertised the plan to take down Saddams army in gulf war 1, I know we had a huge preponderance of force etc. but still......I don't get it.
Click to expand...

 
Frankly? I think it's diversion away from his domestic problems (IRS, Benghazi, NSA, ad nauseum), by pretending to be tough when this is the second time the 'red line' has been crossed. Recovering his creds perhaps?


----------



## Trajan

wag the dog...


----------



## The T

Trajan said:


> wag the dog...


That's the way I see it.
He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.


----------



## paulitician

Not hearing enough from the 'Anti-War Left.' They need to be more active and vocal. Their credibility is on the line.


----------



## KevinWestern

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



I think this is WWIII.

There's Russians in that country, and there are Russian troops nearby ready to defend.

This whole thing is a lie. There's no reason Assad would choose to use chemical weapons, no reason.

Fucking asshole gov't are going to get us all in deep shit.


----------



## paulitician

KevinWestern said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is WWIII.
> 
> There's Russians in that country, and there are Russian troops nearby ready to defend.
> 
> This whole thing is a lie. There's no reason Assad would choose to use chemical weapons, no reason.
> 
> Fucking asshole gov't are going to get us all in deep shit.
Click to expand...


Yeah i agree. It's another sad scam. There is nothing to gain for Assad in using Chemical Weapons. It's a No-Win for him. He's not stupid. He's an educated man. The whole thing stinks.


----------



## The T

KevinWestern said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is WWIII.
> 
> There's Russians in that country, and there are Russian troops nearby ready to defend.
> 
> This whole thing is a lie. There's no reason Assad would choose to use chemical weapons, no reason.
> 
> Fucking asshole gov't are going to get us all in deep shit.
Click to expand...

Just symantics I know...but WW IV. III was the Cold War...and surprise? The Russians involved as well.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> wag the dog...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it.
> He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.
Click to expand...


I need a reminder, haven't we already been down this road when liberals were bitching back 10 years ago?


----------



## The T

paulitician said:


> Not hearing enough from the 'Anti-War Left.' They need to be more active and vocal. Their credibility is on the line.


Yes it is. Many voted for him when he said he'd get us out of the region...what has he done? Set it on fire. Little did they know?


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> wag the dog...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it.
> He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need a reminder, haven't we already been down this road when liberals were bitching back 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yep. But this one is OK...it's their side doing it. And yes they do need some reflection time...to ask WHY they voted for the guy in the first place.

He promised to get us OUT of the region...he's setting it on fire.


----------



## dilloduck

The T said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is WWIII.
> 
> There's Russians in that country, and there are Russian troops nearby ready to defend.
> 
> This whole thing is a lie. There's no reason Assad would choose to use chemical weapons, no reason.
> 
> Fucking asshole gov't are going to get us all in deep shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just symantics I know...but WW IV. III was the Cold War...and surprise? The Russians involved as well.
Click to expand...


and what won the cold war ?  Money...


----------



## The T

dilloduck said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is WWIII.
> 
> There's Russians in that country, and there are Russian troops nearby ready to defend.
> 
> This whole thing is a lie. There's no reason Assad would choose to use chemical weapons, no reason.
> 
> Fucking asshole gov't are going to get us all in deep shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Just symantics I know...but WW IV. III was the Cold War...and surprise? The Russians involved as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what won the cold war ? Money...
Click to expand...

Yep. We outspent the Russkies...they couldn't keep up. Afghanistan was their death knell IMHO.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it.
> He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need a reminder, haven't we already been down this road when liberals were bitching back 10 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But this one is OK...it's their side doing it. And yes they do need some reflection time...to ask WHY they voted for the guy in the first place.
> 
> He promised to get us OUT of the region...he's setting it on fire.
Click to expand...


I cannot see how any obama supporter can support this idiot.


----------



## dilloduck

The T said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just symantics I know...but WW IV. III was the Cold War...and surprise? The Russians involved as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what won the cold war ? Money...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. We outspent the Russkies...they couldn't keep up. Afghanistan was their death knell IMHO.
Click to expand...


well my gracious friends have provided me with the info I've been asking for and it's getting quite clear that this one is all about the dollar too and more precisely about how our dollar fares in juxtaposition with Iran and oil. We can't very well attack Iran with Syria sitting on Israel's northern flank. That's why Assad has to go. It's a dirty business.


----------



## B. Kidd

Britain is not on board yet supporting a Syrian airstrike. If Britain says nay, will Obie punk out?


----------



## The T

dilloduck said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what won the cold war ? Money...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. We outspent the Russkies...they couldn't keep up. Afghanistan was their death knell IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well my gracious friends have provided me with the info I've been asking for and it's getting quite clear that this one is all about the dollar too and more precisely about how our dollar fares in juxtaposition with Iran and oil. We can't very well attack Iran with Syria sitting on Israel's northern flank. That's why Assad has to go. It's a dirty business.
Click to expand...

And then the appearance is that WE support the Rebels that are our enemies as well...al-Queida/Hezbollah...other thugs, dregs. Such a quandary.


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need a reminder, haven't we already been down this road when liberals were bitching back 10 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But this one is OK...it's their side doing it. And yes they do need some reflection time...to ask WHY they voted for the guy in the first place.
> 
> He promised to get us OUT of the region...he's setting it on fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot see how any obama supporter can support this idiot.
Click to expand...

Most don't, or refuse to educate themselves. They don't care.


----------



## Trajan

paulitician said:


> Not hearing enough from the 'Anti-War Left.' They need to be more active and vocal. Their credibility is on the line.



biden says its cool, bush, war monger- obama, doing the righteous thang


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But this one is OK...it's their side doing it. And yes they do need some reflection time...to ask WHY they voted for the guy in the first place.
> 
> He promised to get us OUT of the region...he's setting it on fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot see how any obama supporter can support this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most don't, or refuse to educate themselves. They don't care.
Click to expand...


I was talking with this guy today about Syria, he acted as if he thought he knew what was going on. Everything he told came directly from the mainstream media. Got to burn  Syria. He said he was told all the facts of why we must do this?

I asked him what threat Syria imposed on the U.S.? he dropped his head and changed the subject.


----------



## Trajan

B. Kidd said:


> Britain is not on board yet supporting a Syrian airstrike. If Britain says nay, will Obie punk out?



 if Britain can  even mount one you mean.....what have they got left,  20 planes? after 3 days they'll need our refueling capacity and ammunitions ala Libya.....


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what won the cold war ? Money...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. We outspent the Russkies...they couldn't keep up. Afghanistan was their death knell IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well my gracious friends have provided me with the info I've been asking for and it's getting quite clear that this one is all about the dollar too and more precisely about how our dollar fares in juxtaposition with Iran and oil. We can't very well attack Iran with Syria sitting on Israel's northern flank. That's why Assad has to go. It's a dirty business.
Click to expand...


explain the $$ part please....

and your 'synopsis' ala assad on Israels flank as being somehow connected to attacking Iran makes no sense.


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot see how any obama supporter can support this idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Most don't, or refuse to educate themselves. They don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking with this guy today about Syria, he acted as if he thought he knew what was going on. Everything he told came directly from the mainstream media. Got to burn Syria. He said he was told all the facts of why we must do this?
> 
> I asked him what threat Syria imposed on the U.S.? he dropped his head and changed the subject.
Click to expand...

 

Some LIV's tend to try to dazzle with BS from the prism of emotion(s), without going and looking deeper...I think he understood you knew more and couldn't handle it...thus the 'thread change'. 

You educated him Good on you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most don't, or refuse to educate themselves. They don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking with this guy today about Syria, he acted as if he thought he knew what was going on. Everything he told came directly from the mainstream media. Got to burn Syria. He said he was told all the facts of why we must do this?
> 
> I asked him what threat Syria imposed on the U.S.? he dropped his head and changed the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some LIV's tend to try to dazzle with BS from the prism of emotion(s), without going and looking deeper...I think he understood you knew more and couldn't handle it...thus the 'thread change'.
> 
> You educated him Good on you.
Click to expand...


He looked shocked when I informed him that the rebels were Al queda, but tried to blow it off.


----------



## The T

Trajan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hearing enough from the 'Anti-War Left.' They need to be more active and vocal. Their credibility is on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biden says its cool, bush, war monger- obama, doing the righteous thang
Click to expand...

Always the way it is with the left. UP the right's butts with microscopes...however when the left does the same? U Can't Touch This...


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking with this guy today about Syria, he acted as if he thought he knew what was going on. Everything he told came directly from the mainstream media. Got to burn Syria. He said he was told all the facts of why we must do this?
> 
> I asked him what threat Syria imposed on the U.S.? he dropped his head and changed the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some LIV's tend to try to dazzle with BS from the prism of emotion(s), without going and looking deeper...I think he understood you knew more and couldn't handle it...thus the 'thread change'.
> 
> You educated him Good on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He looked shocked when I informed him that the rebels were Al queda, but tried to blow it off.
Click to expand...

 
Because the Media won't tell the entire tale. PAR for their course.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some LIV's tend to try to dazzle with BS from the prism of emotion(s), without going and looking deeper...I think he understood you knew more and couldn't handle it...thus the 'thread change'.
> 
> You educated him Good on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He looked shocked when I informed him that the rebels were Al queda, but tried to blow it off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Media won't tell the entire tale. PAR for their course.
Click to expand...


It's fucking disgusting how so many people think they are informed but don't have a fucking clue.

OH he did ask me where do I get my new sources, right wing media? I told him I get it from a variety of news outlets mostly from other countries.


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. We outspent the Russkies...they couldn't keep up. Afghanistan was their death knell IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well my gracious friends have provided me with the info I've been asking for and it's getting quite clear that this one is all about the dollar too and more precisely about how our dollar fares in juxtaposition with Iran and oil. We can't very well attack Iran with Syria sitting on Israel's northern flank. That's why Assad has to go. It's a dirty business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> explain the $$ part please....
> 
> and your 'synopsis' ala assad on Israels flank as being somehow connected to attacking Iran makes no sense.
Click to expand...


I've already posted links to the petrodollar situation, and the fact the Iran threatens it and it just makes military sense to take out Syria (Iran's weaker ally) before moving on to Iran...
Iran---nukes--Hezbollah----none of them are Israel's buddy's. I mean Israel is already Attacking Syria. Are we supposed to pretend it's not happening?


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He looked shocked when I informed him that the rebels were Al queda, but tried to blow it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Media won't tell the entire tale. PAR for their course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fucking disgusting how so many people think they are informed but don't have a fucking clue.
> 
> OH he did ask me where do I get my new sources, right wing media? I told him I get it from a variety of news outlets mostly from other countries.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A variety of sources, mixed with logic and common sense / history= forming an opinion based on fact.

Too much like math...work...for the _dumb masses._


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> well my gracious friends have provided me with the info I've been asking for and it's getting quite clear that this one is all about the dollar too and more precisely about how our dollar fares in juxtaposition with Iran and oil. We can't very well attack Iran with Syria sitting on Israel's northern flank. That's why Assad has to go. It's a dirty business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> explain the $$ part please....
> 
> and your 'synopsis' ala assad on Israels flank as being somehow connected to attacking Iran makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already posted links to the petrodollar situation, and the fact the Iran threatens it and it just makes military sense to take out Syria (Iran's weaker ally) before moving on to Iran...
> *Iran---nukes--Hezbollah--*--none of them are Israel's buddy's. I mean Israel is already Attacking Syria. Are we supposed to pretend it's not happening?
Click to expand...


uhm I said that weeks ago, and have restated it..( see the bold).....why is this a surprise and why is it 'evil'....?

the petro- $$ thing? I wasn't aware you were into conspiracy theories dillo, please.....thats just malarkey ...


----------



## dilloduck

Trajan said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain the $$ part please....
> 
> and your 'synopsis' ala assad on Israels flank as being somehow connected to attacking Iran makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted links to the petrodollar situation, and the fact the Iran threatens it and it just makes military sense to take out Syria (Iran's weaker ally) before moving on to Iran...
> *Iran---nukes--Hezbollah--*--none of them are Israel's buddy's. I mean Israel is already Attacking Syria. Are we supposed to pretend it's not happening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uhm I said that weeks ago, and have restated it..( see the bold).....why is this a surprise and why is it 'evil'....?
> 
> the petro- $$ thing? I wasn't aware you were into conspiracy theories dillo, please.....thats just malarkey ...
Click to expand...


I know you said it weeks ago and it's still true. The hysterical frenzy over poison gas is an insult to an intelligent American citizen. America et al want Assad gone so they can continue on to Iran without have to worry about what kind of trouble Syria might stir up. Onwards to kill the nukes and save the American petrodollar.


----------



## Wyatt earp

The T said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> wag the dog...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it.
> He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.
Click to expand...


Yea right, Russia and Iran wont do shit and China never attacks anyone unless in their backyard and If Russia or Iran do they will get smoked by the U.S. Airforce and Navy. It will never be a ground war against Russia or Iran.


----------



## Wyatt earp

It was a fair fight in Nam' but our fighter pilots and planes are way better then the Russians they wouldnt stand a chance and they know it


----------



## The T

bear513 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> wag the dog...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it.
> He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea right, Russia and Iran wont do shit and China never attacks anyone unless in their backyard and If Russia or Iran do they will get smoked by the U.S. Airforce and Navy. It will never be a ground war against Russia or Iran.
Click to expand...

With the cutbacks in the Military a-la sequester...WAR in two theatres since 2003?

Think again. YES our folks are the BEST...bar NONE...this nation AND our troops are weary. Please take this into account. OBAMA is trying to save his own ass and divert our attention.


----------



## Wyatt earp

The T said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it.
> He's going to get us in a mess in which we may not recover...and setting the whole world aflame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea right, Russia and Iran wont do shit and China never attacks anyone unless in their backyard and If Russia or Iran do they will get smoked by the U.S. Airforce and Navy. It will never be a ground war against Russia or Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With the cutbacks in the Military a-la sequester...WAR in two theatres since 2003?
> 
> Think again. YES our folks are the BEST...bar NONE...this nation AND our troops are weary. Please take this into account. OBAMA is trying to save his own ass and divert our attention.
Click to expand...


You have a point, but we wont use boots on the ground because of that. I just dont get all this WWIII  talk...it wont happen China or Russia wont fight the USA the economys are way to intangled. They need us as much as we need them And Iran like North Korea just talk shit but wont go up against the U.S. it would be Suicide. sorry for any spelling errors...


----------



## Billo_Really

bear513 said:


> It was a fair fight in Nam' but our fighter pilots and planes are way better then the Russians they wouldnt stand a chance and they know it


Oh shut-up!

Why is it every big-mouth asshole always gets their ass whupped in the end?


----------



## Two Thumbs

It's a shame.  We more than likely are going into another war.

Ironically, obama will hold the record for number of countries we've been/gone to war with, if he already doesn't have it.  And he won the peace prize.

and when we do go, we will kill a bunch of people that want to live the way they want to live and we won't go near Assad.

Kill him, his wife (bitch is evil), the political and military leaders and it's over.  let the place rot or prepare for another afghanistan


----------



## KevinWestern

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted links to the petrodollar situation, and the fact the Iran threatens it and it just makes military sense to take out Syria (Iran's weaker ally) before moving on to Iran...
> *Iran---nukes--Hezbollah--*--none of them are Israel's buddy's. I mean Israel is already Attacking Syria. Are we supposed to pretend it's not happening?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhm I said that weeks ago, and have restated it..( see the bold).....why is this a surprise and why is it 'evil'....?
> 
> the petro- $$ thing? I wasn't aware you were into conspiracy theories dillo, please.....thats just malarkey ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you said it weeks ago and it's still true. The hysterical frenzy over poison gas is an insult to an intelligent American citizen. America et al want Assad gone so they can continue on to Iran without have to worry about what kind of trouble Syria might stir up. Onwards to kill the nukes and save the American petrodollar.
Click to expand...


Assad was winning the war, too. No reason to use chemical weapons at this time because it would do nothing but prevent him from achieving his goals. 

I highly doubt the Syrian Regime was behind the attack.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Rebels to conduct that attack and blame it on Assad to further their cause? These are the SAME rebels that were photographed EATING a human heart (just two months after meeting with John McCain).


----------



## The T

Two Thumbs said:


> It's a shame. We more than likely are going into another war.
> 
> Ironically, obama will hold the record for number of countries we've been/gone to war with, if he already doesn't have it. And he won the peace prize.
> 
> and when we do go, we will kill a bunch of people that want to live the way they want to live and we won't go near Assad.
> 
> Kill him, his wife (bitch is evil), the political and military leaders and it's over. let the place rot or prepare for another afghanistan


The PEACE PRIZE bit irritates the heck out of me...He got it for just merely being elected or so it seems. Can the Nobel committee rescind it?

It appears Obama never earned it, and laughs about it thinking HE got one over on the whole world as he lights the world on fire, especially the M.E.


----------



## Kondor3

bear513 said:


> "...Russia and Iran wont do shit..."



Agreed.

Russia cannot project that kind of Conventional Military Muscle very far beyond their borders any longer. They're trying to fix that but it's going to take another 10-20 years or more, I expect.



> "...a_nd China never attacks anyone unless in their backyard_..."



True.

The Chinese are even worse-prepared to project Conventional Military Muscle into the Med and Middle East than are the Russians.

Plus, the Chinese economy and our own are far too tightly intertwoven for the Chinese to do something crazy like that, except in the more dire and mortal of circumstances, and this little circus-flea of an intervention ain't it.



> "..._and If Russia or Iran do they will get smoked by the U.S. Airforce and Navy_..."



Insofar as the Iranians are concerned, all we need to do is to turn the Israelis loose on 'em, to make 'em pee their pants and keep 'em off our backs. If it gets this far, Muslim world opinion will be soooo badly skewed against us that getting the Israelis involved would no longer be much of a political concern, and, if not, we shift a few of our own assets to cover the approaches from Iran, and shoot 'em up ourselves, as they cross the border.

As far as either the Russian Air Force or the Russian Navy is concerned, they know better than to mess with us - and NATO in general - in the Med... which is, basically, a NATO lake... or in any of the states surrounding the Med.

They don't have that kind of muscle and they'd be too far from their bases. And, you're right - we're better than they are, in the Air, and on the Water; better or comparable gear, better training, better motivation, better-supplied, better paid, better (and more) experience.

None of that is a rock-solid guarantee that we'd kick their ass, but it's an overwhelming set of factors that would cause Smart Vegas Money to back the US and The West in any such brawl.

And the Russians are smart enough and pragmatic enough to know that, and to take such limitations into account in their own political calculations, despite the bluster.



> "..._It will never be a ground war against Russia or Iran._"



Agreed.

The Russians won't punch through Turkey, and neither the Russians nor the Iranians can send large-scale ground-forces convoys through Iraq without a repeat of the Highway of Death scenario, this time, featuring Russian or Iranian convoy gear and bodies.

And, lacking control of the Air, neither Russia nor Iran would be able to airlift enough ground troops and gear into position in order to be decisive, before we and NATO started shooting them out of the air the minute they crossed beyond their own airspace.

The Russians won't go nuclear over this pissant sideshow.

Consequently, it's a good bet that we don't have to worry overly much about a military response from Russia, China or Iran.

IMHO.


----------



## Geaux4it

Wow, wonder if Adolf Obama would use his famous, 'and most Americans would agree' after looking at this poll?

-Geaux


----------



## Rambunctious

Hell no!  It's time this Nation stops digging it's own grave...I can't figure out if Obama is ignorant or sinister or both but another war is absurd.  And McCain you can just shut the fuck up.


----------



## Trajan

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted links to the petrodollar situation, and the fact the Iran threatens it and it just makes military sense to take out Syria (Iran's weaker ally) before moving on to Iran...
> *Iran---nukes--Hezbollah--*--none of them are Israel's buddy's. I mean Israel is already Attacking Syria. Are we supposed to pretend it's not happening?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhm I said that weeks ago, and have restated it..( see the bold).....why is this a surprise and why is it 'evil'....?
> 
> the petro- $$ thing? I wasn't aware you were into conspiracy theories dillo, please.....thats just malarkey ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you said it weeks ago and it's still true. The hysterical frenzy over poison gas is an insult to an intelligent American citizen. America et al want Assad gone so they can continue on to Iran without have to worry about what kind of trouble Syria might stir up. Onwards to kill the nukes and save the American petrodollar.
Click to expand...


saves the whales dude, hows that?


----------



## RandallFlagg

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He looked shocked when I informed him that the rebels were Al queda, but tried to blow it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Media won't tell the entire tale. PAR for their course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fucking disgusting how so many people think they are informed but don't have a fucking clue.
> 
> OH he did ask me where do I get my new sources, right wing media? I told him I get it from a variety of news outlets mostly from other countries.
Click to expand...


I can guarantee you that, from a former life, I can attest to the fact that there are about 20 people right now that "know what's going on" and about 150 logistics personnel that have direct access to "parts" of what is going on - and I ain't one of them.

That's pretty much it.

Whatever is going to happen, until the decision is made to begin leaking bits and pieces (to gauge support) to the Press - not a soul outside of the TOC  and the Naval Command structure know what the heck is going on, and most of them are on "mission standby" right now.

Until then, it is all saber rattling.


----------



## Robodoon

No war!


----------



## Geaux4it

[youtube]SIFTXEqEh-8[/youtube]


----------



## dilloduck

I know the response to that one  "but this is DIFFERENT".


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. So Obama the dumb-ass goes on PBS instead of to congress to explain his position.
2. What the fuck is fucking wrong with this fucking idiot???




Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Geaux4it

The initial international support that is caving is telling

In all seriousness, Obama needs to pull back here. 

-Geaux


----------



## Circe

B. Kidd said:


> Are you talking about the neutered Russia that has at least three new Borei class nuclear submarines operational; possessing a next-gen nuclear reactor that is almost noiseless, can navigate autonomously for three months, carries up to 20 solid fuel ICBMs' able to overcome any prospective missle defense system?




No, I'm talking about the Russia that has vacated the naval resupply base they have in Syria and sent all its ships out in the Mediterranean for safety. And the Russia that this afternoon has evacuated all Russian citizens from Syria.

We've got troubles enough; you don't have to worry about Russia.

Except for their delaying tactics in the UN, which may have more effect than the administration hoped.


----------



## Circe

Kondor3 said:


> conspiracy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> meh.... i have no problem with them killing each other off. Less of them to hate us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't put much thought into this, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, "Less is More"...
> 
> Sometimes, there is a certain eloquence in simplicity...
> 
> This may very well prove to be one of those times...
Click to expand...



Agreed. Most of the nation wishes the disgusting Arabs would all kill each other! And not bother us with poison gas and nukes and what not while they do it. Just get it done, enjoy. Look how noone ever cares or remarks on the daily bombings that go on in Iraq. Why should we care? They are our enemies. If they are killing each other, that just saves us the effort.


----------



## flacaltenn

Seriously man.. We need an adult to take away the keys to the armory for a couple years.
We don't deserve to have a war capability like we do. Not when we bomb 5 countries a year and jump into fights with the goal to just pummel the current guy on top. 

ESPECIALLY when the guy on the bottom is named Al Queda and is a sworn enemy... 

I'm almost to the point of cheering on Putin and Chinese to stand up to this nonsense.

Not only antagonizing China and RUssia -- but putting Israel into the crosshairs ??? For WHAT END??
This Admin is deluded and dangerous..


----------



## RandallFlagg

Circe said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the neutered Russia that has at least three new Borei class nuclear submarines operational; possessing a next-gen nuclear reactor that is almost noiseless, can navigate autonomously for three months, carries up to 20 solid fuel ICBMs' able to overcome any prospective missle defense system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm talking about the Russia that has vacated the naval resupply base they have in Syria and sent all its ships out in the Mediterranean for safety. And the Russia that this afternoon has evacuated all Russian citizens from Syria.
> 
> We've got troubles enough; you don't have to worry about Russia.
> 
> Except for their delaying tactics in the UN, which may have more effect than the administration hoped.
Click to expand...


And why wouldn't they? We'd do the exact same thing. The safest place for ships is at sea. Personnel are vacating the area for their safety. No news there. I will promise you that there is more than enough of a contingency there to defend the base from ground attack.

Russia does not normally "walk away" from what's viewed as "theirs", any more than we do.


----------



## toshiro

I'm all for reminding Middle Easterners how crazy and dangerous Americans are. And it'll stimulate the economy. But really, there's no reason for us to get in on that.


----------



## flacaltenn

toshiro said:


> I'm all for reminding Middle Easterners how crazy and dangerous Americans are. And it'll stimulate the economy. But really, there's no reason for us to get in on that.



Something tells me that you might believe that "crazy and dangerous" folks shouldn't be able to own nuclear weapons ---- or a gun...


----------



## Circe

Now the protests have started -- first in Britain, stymieing Cameron's participation, at least for now.

If Obama wants his very own war as a presidential perk, he better move fast before he gets blocked: the poll numbers nationally and on this poll thread are wildly against getting into this. He could get bipartisan protests if he waits much time at all.


----------



## Geaux4it

Iran just came out and said they would attack Israel. Said it would be the US second Vietnam

-Geaux


----------



## Kondor3

Geaux4it said:


> Iran just came out and said they would attack Israel. Said it would be the US second Vietnam
> 
> -Geaux


Link?


----------



## Freewill

The Rabbi said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
> It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.
> 
> Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions?  He lied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be too sure.  What I think could happen and I thought this all along.  I think Obama may wish to flex his muscles.  Prove he is a man by bombing the crap out of Syria.  There is a chance he may go overboard and provoke another cold war or worse.  Or should I say a colder war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutelu nothing in his history shows this is likely.  He is a gutless coward unsure of himself and will do the minimum necessary so he can spin that he followed through on his word.
Click to expand...


Actually I think his surge in Afghanistan and his multiplying the death rate over Bush's is proof enough for me.  His use of the drone program is more proof, in my opinion.  And terror bombing is exactly what Clinton did in Serbia.


----------



## mudwhistle

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 
> 1. So Obama the dumb-ass goes on PBS instead of to congress to explain his position.
> 2. What the fuck is fucking wrong with this fucking idiot???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



He likes a captive audience.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Hearing the same people who so proudly trumpeted invading Iraq with hundreds of thousands of young American soldiers suddenly worrying about the effects of firing some rockets into Syria and its possible Middle East ramifications rings a little hollow.

But I'll take it.  Hopefully the polls showing Americans solidly against military action will keep Obama from (yet again) sticking our nose into Middle East affairs.

.


----------



## Circe

> Quote: Originally Posted by Geaux4it
> Iran just came out and said they would attack Israel. Said it would be the US second Vietnam
> 
> -Geaux




Yeah, showed up just now on Reuters. There are a lot of pop-offs saying a lot of silly things in Iran now, however.




> Iran commander: U.S. strike on Syria would bring Israel's destruction
> 
> DUBAI | Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:29am EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief said a U.S. military attack on Syria would lead to the "imminent destruction" of Israel and would prove a "second Vietnam" for America, according to an Iranian news agency.


----------



## Circe

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> ... I'll take it.  Hopefully the polls showing Americans solidly against military action will keep Obama from (yet again) sticking our nose into Middle East affairs.




I'm amazed: this is the most unified America has been in 10 years. And AGAINST war, unusually.

I wonder if Obama will let this "opportunity" slip away and not be able to proceed because of unified opposition from the people, Congress, and the UN. He would sure have his face covered with egg then, after all this hoop-la.


----------



## deltex1

Some shlub is on cnbc bemoaning the fact that if Obabble does not act it will undermine his credibility vis a vis Iran and its nuke program.  What credibility is that?


----------



## paulitician

Circe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> ... I'll take it.  Hopefully the polls showing Americans solidly against military action will keep Obama from (yet again) sticking our nose into Middle East affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm amazed: this is the most unified America has been in 10 years. And AGAINST war, unusually.
> 
> I wonder if Obama will let this "opportunity" slip away and not be able to proceed because of unified opposition from the people, Congress, and the UN. He would sure have his face covered with egg then, after all this hoop-la.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's great to see. The People don't want this War. That's pretty clear. Personally, i don't believe Assad used Chemical Weapons. I think it's another War Propaganda scam to get the People to support it. It's just way too convenient. It serves no logical purpose for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. He's no dummy. He's a very educated man. I think the People are seeing through this one. And i'm sure that's a big shock to our Government. They had this War planned for years. They just assumed the Sheep would all line up to dutifully support it. Oops, didn't happen. But it's not over yet. They still want this War. So stay tuned.


----------



## deltex1

paulitician said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> ... I'll take it.  Hopefully the polls showing Americans solidly against military action will keep Obama from (yet again) sticking our nose into Middle East affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm amazed: this is the most unified America has been in 10 years. And AGAINST war, unusually.
> 
> I wonder if Obama will let this "opportunity" slip away and not be able to proceed because of unified opposition from the people, Congress, and the UN. He would sure have his face covered with egg then, after all this hoop-la.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's great to see. The People don't want this War. That's pretty clear. Personally, i don't believe Assad used Chemical Weapons. I think it's another War Propaganda scam to get the People to support it. It's just way too convenient. It serves no logical purpose for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. He's no dummy. He's a very educated man. I think the People are seeing through this one. And i'm sure that's a big shock to our Government. They had this War planned for years. They just assumed the Sheep would all line up to dutifully support it. Oops, didn't happen. But it's not over yet. They still want this War. So stay tuned.
Click to expand...


I suppose you are another one who thinks everything is a lie...except the "truth" that there were no WMD in Saddams Iraq.  LMBBFFAO!!!


----------



## paulitician

deltex1 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm amazed: this is the most unified America has been in 10 years. And AGAINST war, unusually.
> 
> I wonder if Obama will let this "opportunity" slip away and not be able to proceed because of unified opposition from the people, Congress, and the UN. He would sure have his face covered with egg then, after all this hoop-la.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's great to see. The People don't want this War. That's pretty clear. Personally, i don't believe Assad used Chemical Weapons. I think it's another War Propaganda scam to get the People to support it. It's just way too convenient. It serves no logical purpose for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. He's no dummy. He's a very educated man. I think the People are seeing through this one. And i'm sure that's a big shock to our Government. They had this War planned for years. They just assumed the Sheep would all line up to dutifully support it. Oops, didn't happen. But it's not over yet. They still want this War. So stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you are another one who thinks everything is a lie...except the "truth" that there were no WMD in Saddams Iraq.  LMBBFFAO!!!
Click to expand...


Not everything. But i will admit i do believe most things coming from our Government are lies. This Chemical Attack is an awful charade. Why would Assad do it? There's just no logical strategic value in it. Therefore, i must call Bullshit.


----------



## Kondor3

*I am proud of the folks on this Board* -  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!


----------



## deltex1

Kondor3 said:


> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience.



Me too...the DOW is up as attack fears recede...good revised GDP report....lots of peeps on the verge of a stock price rebound.  Bury the dead...insufficient evidence...move on...party time!!


----------



## Camp

paulitician said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's great to see. The People don't want this War. That's pretty clear. Personally, i don't believe Assad used Chemical Weapons. I think it's another War Propaganda scam to get the People to support it. It's just way too convenient. It serves no logical purpose for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. He's no dummy. He's a very educated man. I think the People are seeing through this one. And i'm sure that's a big shock to our Government. They had this War planned for years. They just assumed the Sheep would all line up to dutifully support it. Oops, didn't happen. But it's not over yet. They still want this War. So stay tuned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you are another one who thinks everything is a lie...except the "truth" that there were no WMD in Saddams Iraq.  LMBBFFAO!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everything. But i will admit i do believe most things coming from our Government are lies. This Chemical Attack is an awful charade. Why would Assad do it? There's just no logical strategic value in it. Therefore, i must call Bullshit.
Click to expand...


The propagand war on this issue has been stunning and awsome, by all sides. There has never been a proposal to invade Syria. No preperations for such an invasion have occured. It has been clear from the outset that what has been proposed and prepared for is an attack by air that would weaken and punish the Syrian regime in response to the use of chemical weapons. The extent of this attack is what is at issue with the leaders of the world community. The Syrian and Iranian response has been to imply this action would mean war. Another Vietnam. The USA dragged into an Iraq type war. They just don't want Syrian airbases, heavy weapons assets, air defense and communications destroyed by cruise missiles and air strikes that would make the battlefield with the rebels more level and balanced. No doubt they are glad to see their propaganda be spread here in the USA. That is the point we have come to in this country. American's spreading the enemy propaganda for them. Obsessive hate for a President supercedes patriotism and standing united when our military is being deployed and going into harms way to accomplish a mission.


----------



## Kondor3

Frankly, I doubt that few Thinking Americans believe that either Syria nor Iran are much of a threat, in the context of a conflict with Syria, nor do I believe that most Thinking Americans believe that either Russia nor the Chinese are going to do anything whatsoever beyond complaining, if a shooting war erupted with Syria.

No, I do not believe that Americans are spreading Enemy Propaganda as a brake on the Presidency; rather, I believe that Americans know Government Bullshit when they hear it (we've been down that road once before, with so-called Iraqi WMD) and that Americans are CALLING Bullshit this time, before we make another mistake in trying to play World Policeman; viewing this as the Wrong Fight at the Wrong Time.

That this SEEMS somewhat in alignment with the hopes of our Antagonist(s) in the region is pure coincidence, but that does not serve as a barrier to such points and such discussions still holding their validity amongst ourselves, for our OWN purposes.

Nobody is playing Fifth Columnist here... nobody is committing Treason...

Just Americans (and other friends, along with an antagonist or two, here-and-there) doing what Americans do best... discussing, arguing, and trying to find some measure of consensus on which to act (or not act)...

But it's basically a conversation undertaken BY Americans, FOR Americans, and with America's own best interests and safety and well-being in mind...

A conversation that is our Right...

Plenty of time to circle the wagons and back the President and to demonstrate solidarity later, if it comes to that...

But until that first shot is fired, the Conversation is wide-open...

None of that gives aid-and-comfort to the Enemy, because, until that first shot *IS* fired, there *IS* no Enemy...


----------



## Bluedog

I learned from Iraq. War is costly and financing the MIC on the nations credit card will do nothing but put us into a deeper financial hole than we are now. If thats humanly possible.


----------



## Kondor3

War is expensive alright, but it's even more costly in blood and human sufffering than it is in treasure...


----------



## dilloduck

Bluedog said:


> I learned from Iraq. War is costly and financing the MIC on the nations credit card will do nothing but put us into a deeper financial hole than we are now. If thats humanly possible.



Saudi Arabia and Qatar are financing a lot of this one. It's possible that they are even paying the US. Who knows? They want Assad gone badly.


----------



## deltex1

Camp said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you are another one who thinks everything is a lie...except the "truth" that there were no WMD in Saddams Iraq.  LMBBFFAO!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everything. But i will admit i do believe most things coming from our Government are lies. This Chemical Attack is an awful charade. Why would Assad do it? There's just no logical strategic value in it. Therefore, i must call Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The propagand war on this issue has been stunning and awsome, by all sides. There has never been a proposal to invade Syria. No preperations for such an invasion have occured. It has been clear from the outset that what has been proposed and prepared for is an attack by air that would weaken and punish the Syrian regime in response to the use of chemical weapons. The extent of this attack is what is at issue with the leaders of the world community. The Syrian and Iranian response has been to imply this action would mean war. Another Vietnam. The USA dragged into an Iraq type war. They just don't want Syrian airbases, heavy weapons assets, air defense and communications destroyed by cruise missiles and air strikes that would make the battlefield with the rebels more level and balanced. No doubt they are glad to see their propaganda be spread here in the USA. That is the point we have come to in this country. American's spreading the enemy propaganda for them. Obsessive hate for a President supercedes patriotism and standing united when our military is being deployed and going into harms way to accomplish a mission.
Click to expand...


That's what happens when we have no leader/no plan...only dithering, unplanned remarks and bumps in the road.  The situation is pathetic...good post


----------



## Camp

deltex1 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everything. But i will admit i do believe most things coming from our Government are lies. This Chemical Attack is an awful charade. Why would Assad do it? There's just no logical strategic value in it. Therefore, i must call Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The propagand war on this issue has been stunning and awsome, by all sides. There has never been a proposal to invade Syria. No preperations for such an invasion have occured. It has been clear from the outset that what has been proposed and prepared for is an attack by air that would weaken and punish the Syrian regime in response to the use of chemical weapons. The extent of this attack is what is at issue with the leaders of the world community. The Syrian and Iranian response has been to imply this action would mean war. Another Vietnam. The USA dragged into an Iraq type war. They just don't want Syrian airbases, heavy weapons assets, air defense and communications destroyed by cruise missiles and air strikes that would make the battlefield with the rebels more level and balanced. No doubt they are glad to see their propaganda be spread here in the USA. That is the point we have come to in this country. American's spreading the enemy propaganda for them. Obsessive hate for a President supercedes patriotism and standing united when our military is being deployed and going into harms way to accomplish a mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happens when we have no leader/no plan...only dithering, unplanned remarks and bumps in the road.  The situation is pathetic...good post
Click to expand...


What happens is the important questions get put on a long list on nonsense questions and do not get the priority and focus needed. What proof does the President have that the chemical attack that occured was instigated by the Syrian government? If that question can not be answered should there be an attack? How sure do we have to be about that answer? What is the purpose of an attack on Syria? Is it to punish or is it to go after the chemical weapons so they can not be used again? If it is to punish, to what extent? If it is to go after chemical weapons, to what extent? Do we have legal authority to do any of these things? Does the President have this authority? Since it is not a situation where we are preventing imminent attack or saftey of American citizens or allies, is congressional action required? These are important questions that should be answered before an offensive operation is begun. Muddying the waters and adding non-related agenda's to the process is harmful, not helpful. Tricking people with misinformation, disinformation, fear and hatred is harmful, not helpful.


----------



## namvet

the only thing in the football is a chicken switch


----------



## Circe

deltex1 said:


> Some shlub is on cnbc bemoaning the fact that if Obabble does not act it will undermine his credibility vis a vis Iran and its nuke program.  What credibility is that?



Poor credibility, true. However, it is the case that an attack on Syria would give Iran something to think about, wouldn't it? '

As opposed to the big O walking away after all this fuss. Iran would just say, "Paper tiger," and build more centrifuges.


----------



## Circe

namvet said:


> the only thing in the football is a chicken switch



What in the world is a chicken switch???

What football?

What are you talking about? This is a thread on a possible upcoming strike on Syria.


----------



## namvet

Circe said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing in the football is a chicken switch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world is a chicken switch???
> 
> What football?
> 
> What are you talking about? This is a thread on a possible upcoming strike on Syria.
Click to expand...


since you don't know they should put YOU in charge LMFAO !!!!!


----------



## Circe

namvet said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing in the football is a chicken switch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world is a chicken switch???
> 
> What football?
> 
> What are you talking about? This is a thread on a possible upcoming strike on Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> since you don't know they should put YOU in charge LMFAO !!!!!
Click to expand...




One of these useless one-line posters.  Has nothing to say on the topic whatsoever and IQ too low to push out any more words than a short line of nothing.

We're discussing a serious topic here. Why don't you go start a thread on current events about Revolution or Secession or black Flash Mobs? That would be more fun for you.


----------



## namvet

Circe said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world is a chicken switch???
> 
> What football?
> 
> What are you talking about? This is a thread on a possible upcoming strike on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since you don't know they should put YOU in charge LMFAO !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of these useless one-line posters.  Has nothing to say on the topic whatsoever and IQ too low to push out any more words than a short line of nothing.
> 
> We're discussing a serious topic here. Why don't you go start a thread on current events about Revolution or Secession or black Flash Mobs? That would be more fun for you.
Click to expand...


seriously  kid you have to be the only one on the planet who doesn't know what the football is. that's just incredible !!!!!!!


----------



## Katzndogz

Circe said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some shlub is on cnbc bemoaning the fact that if Obabble does not act it will undermine his credibility vis a vis Iran and its nuke program.  What credibility is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor credibility, true. However, it is the case that an attack on Syria would give Iran something to think about, wouldn't it? '
> 
> As opposed to the big O walking away after all this fuss. Iran would just say, "Paper tiger," and build more centrifuges.
Click to expand...


What Iran would think about is building more centrifuges faster.   A strike on Syria would work exactly the same way the sanctions against Iran worked.  It would incentivize the country to redouble their efforts to fight Jews and infidels.


----------



## toshiro

Katzndogz said:


> What Iran would think about is building more centrifuges faster.   A strike on Syria would work exactly the same way the sanctions against Iran worked.



They'd probably be mixed about that. The closer they get to completion, the more they'd entice an Obama reaction. He's already kicked in a few doors and had far less domestic opposition than Bush.  All Iran needs is one more crackdown on the Green Revolution guys to act as a catalyst...


----------



## antiquity

toshiro said:


> I'm all for reminding Middle Easterners how crazy and dangerous Americans are. And it'll stimulate the economy. But really, there's no reason for us to get in on that.



If Obama hadn't opened his big mouth about a red line that by the way has seem to gotten really, really wide in recent months, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 
Obama has almost backed himself and the American people into a corner with that comment and now he has to do something. And if he does the wrong thing and attacks Syria he and his liberal supports will lose political support at home....now we all know he won't do that. 
Case closed.


----------



## Camp

Circe said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world is a chicken switch???
> 
> What football?
> 
> What are you talking about? This is a thread on a possible upcoming strike on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since you don't know they should put YOU in charge LMFAO !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of these useless one-line posters.  Has nothing to say on the topic whatsoever and IQ too low to push out any more words than a short line of nothing.
> 
> We're discussing a serious topic here. Why don't you go start a thread on current events about Revolution or Secession or black Flash Mobs? That would be more fun for you.
Click to expand...


His little one liner gave more data than most of the post here. You are just one of those folks who insults and attacks when someone says something you don't understand. Don't be lazy. Get out of the bubble sometimes and learn new stuff.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Quite frankly, after this AM, I think this is much ado about nothing. OBarry has literally TOLD Syria what he intends to do and just WHERE he intends to do it.

I can see 3 or 4 Cruise Missiles being fired at dirt (Syria, I'm sure is in the process of moving these targets) and OBarry will trumpet how he "showed them".

This is little more than bluster from a little boy toward a bully.

OBarry is praying right now that this blows over and he doesn't actually have to do anything.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Back to the Trayvon Martin verdict.


----------



## Spoonman

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



i don't even support sending them, egypt or libya aid


----------



## Kondor3

*BBC America TV News is reporting (as I write this) that Parliament has just voted NOT to support military intervention against Syria... *

An apparent defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron...

By a margin of 13 votes...

Good on the Brits...

I wonder if Fearless Leader still intends to proceed, in the wake of that...

One more vote to come in Parliament, after the UN Inspectors issue their report...

And, earlier in the day, BBC America was reporting that the Inspectors were scheduled to leave Syria on Saturday (August 31st)...

That seems to put the kabosh on immediate (pre-report) action, unless Fearless Leader decides to go it alone...


----------



## RandallFlagg

Kondor3 said:


> *BBC America TV News is reporting (as I write this) that Parliament has just voted NOT to support military intervention against Syria... *
> 
> An apparent defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron...
> 
> By a margin of 13 votes...
> 
> Good on the Brits...
> 
> I wonder if Fearless Leader still intends to proceed, in the wake of that...
> 
> One more vote to come in Parliament, after the UN Inspectors issue their report...
> 
> And, earlier in the day, BBC America was reporting that the Inspectors were scheduled to leave Syria on Saturday (August 31st)...
> 
> That seems to put the kabosh on immediate (pre-report) action, unless Fearless Leader decides to go it alone...




Yep. The primary reason that our Supreme Leader wants to forego Congressional support (remember, HE doesn't follow the Constitution) to "lob" missiles into Syria..

The British are correct and we should deny OBarry the ability to do this as well.


----------



## Indofred

BBC News - David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

The idiot British PM has lost in a big way.
Big isn't the 13 votes; it's the enforced policy change that'll make him look out of touch and weak.

America's stupid president will either have to act alone or look just as idiotic.
That'll be his bribe money from Israel out of the window.


----------



## The T

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BBC America TV News is reporting (as I write this) that Parliament has just voted NOT to support military intervention against Syria... *
> 
> An apparent defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron...
> 
> By a margin of 13 votes...
> 
> Good on the Brits...
> 
> I wonder if Fearless Leader still intends to proceed, in the wake of that...
> 
> One more vote to come in Parliament, after the UN Inspectors issue their report...
> 
> And, earlier in the day, BBC America was reporting that the Inspectors were scheduled to leave Syria on Saturday (August 31st)...
> 
> That seems to put the kabosh on immediate (pre-report) action, unless Fearless Leader decides to go it alone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The primary reason that our Supreme Leader wants to forego Congressional support (remember, HE doesn't follow the Constitution) to "lob" missiles into Syria..
> 
> The British are correct and we should deny OBarry the ability to do this as well.
Click to expand...

 

Clinton did this during the Monica Lewinsky furor...nailed an 'aspirin factory' and ended up killing a janitor.

Statist Dems are good at 'Wag the dog'.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

RandallFlagg said:


> Quite frankly, after this AM, I think this is much ado about nothing. OBarry has literally TOLD Syria what he intends to do and just WHERE he intends to do it.
> 
> *I can see 3 or 4 Cruise Missiles being fired at dirt (Syria, I'm sure is in the process of moving these targets) and OBarry will trumpet how he "showed them".*
> 
> This is little more than bluster from a little boy toward a bully.
> 
> OBarry is praying right now that this blows over and he doesn't actually have to do anything.
> 
> Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Back to the Trayvon Martin verdict.



As to the bolded keep in mind this is alqaida and the muslim brotherhood we're talking about here. There will be casualties as they will stage them there. Take a few political prisoners and their families to the target location to be blown up then scream like crazy how the Americans murdered women, children and stand up members of the community.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

kiwiman127 said:


> I voted No!  I was also against going into Iraq for the same reasons.



The U.S. is slowly but methodically conquering the Middle East. We will always have a good reason to level Iran with air power, so we can leave it for last. It sure helps that we got Iraq in our pocket, eh?

I didn't support any of the wars in the Middle East and was vocal against them all including Afghanistan. All we had to do was send the rangers in to get Bin Laden without invading their country, instead of waiting 10 years to do just exactly that, violating the sovereignty of Pakistan. So why were we worried about violating a little bit of the Taliban's reign to get Bin Laden? We weren't really interested in that only. We wanted revenge for 911 and a lot of it no matter who they were, just as long as they were Muslim.

If it took us 10 years to get Bin Laden, it was obviously impossible for Afghanistan to comply with our ultimatum to hand him over. It was obvious to me in 2001. The Taliban were never our enemy and need never have been.

The Civil War in Syria didn't get going until we invaded Libya. By doing that, we gave spark to insurrection in Syria, and if we invade Syria, it will only get worse in that region. Stop the madness.


----------



## Trajan

well not that the UK has turned a thumb down, obama has got to back up, and its not going to be pretty, I mean, this whole thing has been mismanaged horribly..and, if thats not enough;



Official: White House seeks Syria response 'just muscular enough not to get mocked'
By Justin Sink - 08/28/13 12:45 PM ET


    A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria &#8220;just muscular enough not to get mocked.&#8221;

    &#8220;They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,&#8221; the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last week&#8217;s alleged chemical weapons attack.

    NBC News reported earlier this week that the administration would launch three days of missile strikes, while CNN cited a senior administration official saying that the White House wanted to conclude any action before the president departs for the G-20 summit next week.

more at-
Official: White House seeks Syria response 'just muscular enough not to get mocked' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room




look, I have said I recognize his right to perform such an action, but, 'not to be mocked'...thats, well, a ridiculous reasoning to undertake an action like this.....they have not the slightest idea what they are doing, they have no coherent plan, no coherent for. policy.....its, surreal.


----------



## Circe

Jeepers! The British BLOCKED Cameron's war!

And didn't take any too long doing it, either, and he says he won't participate, now.

Well, darn, could our Congress do anything as bold as that? There's an op-ed my husband was telling me about that says only 9% of Americans support shelling Syria, so who exactly is it who DOES support going to war?? 

Inside Beltway types, State Department, perhaps. Not the Defense Department: Hagel is against the war, he's been saying so abroad.

Can Cameron politically survive such a whackdown? Can Obama survive just ---- deciding he's not allowed to do it after all? What a humiliation that would be.

Congress reconvenes from recess on the Tuesday after Labor Day, right? Barry needs to get on the stick and bomb, baby, bomb if he doesn't want to get blocked by a bunch of upset congressmen, I'd say.

But I hope he doesn't --- sort of refreshing to be united on one thing, at least. Look at the poll on this thread!!


----------



## Circe

Trajan said:


> look, I have said I recognize his right to perform such an action, but, 'not to be mocked'...thats, well, a ridiculous reasoning to undertake an action like this.....they have not the slightest idea what they are doing, they have no coherent plan, no coherent for. policy.....its, surreal.




I agree. It's just sorry.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

bear513 said:


> All it looks like the US will do is launch $50~$100 million worth of Tomahawk missles at them, it looks like they warned them and it will prolly be on Thursday. Big deal.



That's a foot in the door, no? And any ineffectiveness of an attack will only frustrate then galvanize the millions of Americans who are easily led by the nose and don't really spend any time thinking about the horrors of war, let alone the repercussions.

There's only one reason for ANY attack. In Libya it was a no-fly zone, wasn't it? All they need is an inch to take a mile.


----------



## The T

Trajan said:


> well not that the UK has turned a thumb down, obama has got to back up, and its not going to be pretty, I mean, this whole thing has been mismanaged horribly..and, if thats not enough;
> 
> 
> 
> Official: White House seeks Syria response 'just muscular enough not to get mocked'
> By Justin Sink - 08/28/13 12:45 PM ET
> 
> 
> A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria just muscular enough not to get mocked.
> 
> They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic, the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last weeks alleged chemical weapons attack.
> 
> NBC News reported earlier this week that the administration would launch three days of missile strikes, while CNN cited a senior administration official saying that the White House wanted to conclude any action before the president departs for the G-20 summit next week.
> 
> more at-
> Official: White House seeks Syria response 'just muscular enough not to get mocked' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look, I have said I recognize his right to perform such an action, but, 'not to be mocked'...thats, well, a ridiculous reasoning to undertake an action like this.....they have not the slightest idea what they are doing, they have no coherent plan, no coherent for. policy.....its, surreal.


 
Tells me that Obama is working on and failing at securing his legacy apart from ObamaCare...the failure continues.


----------



## R.C. Christian

WWIII is about to be postponed.


----------



## CrazedScotsman

I'm going to say no. 

I'm tired. 

I'm tired of the United States always being the villain no matter what we do. I say to hell with the rest of the world, we have to take care of ourselves. You have a problem? DEAL WITH IT YOURSELF! Don't ask us for help any more.

One more thing, don't mess with us or our friends, we will mess you up.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Brain357 said:


> There would be no way to win.  No!



It's not hard to level any country that's a sitting duck. They'd do it just to use up our backlog of bombs so we can have all fresh ones. Once you unleash them people.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

bear513 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say yes Geneva Protocol
> Geneva Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> If you dont you will have countrys using chemical weapons again. WW1 was enough.
Click to expand...


When you put that kind of heat on any leader with the example made of Kadafi, it's inevitable that war crimes will occur. We are the ones invading other countries without provocation. Which is worse? Oh sorry, we mistakenly invaded Iraq, but it's all good.


----------



## The T

R.C. Christian said:


> WWIII is about to be postponed.


 Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...


----------



## skye

Now there is  absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!

Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.

Mr President:   Make up  you mind one way or another   FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!!   They are clueless Mr President!


----------



## Kondor3

I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> WWIII is about to be postponed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...
Click to expand...


Show a puppy on national news being gassed with nerve gas like it did with Iraq.


----------



## RandallFlagg

skye said:


> Now there is  absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President:   Make up  you mind one way or another   FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!!   They are clueless Mr President!




This has been the liberal ideology for years. Stand up, puff your chest out, beat your chest, then sit down and wring your hands - hoping that you have "scared" the opposition.

In other words - liberals are pussies.

There isn't a country in the world that fears this administration. NOT ONE. These countries look at Obama like an incompetent fool (which he is) and laugh Everytime he begins one of his blustery speeches.

Barry - my free advice to you - Sit down and shut the hell up.


----------



## The T

skye said:


> Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!


Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?

Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind..._again._


----------



## The T

Kondor3 said:


> I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?


 He won't do it. Great Britain's Parliament said NO...Now to see how Obama will backtrack and _blame Republicans, Conservatives HERE..._

_WAIT FOR IT..._


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?
> 
> Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind..._again._
Click to expand...


Are we sure obama is an American and not a Frenchman?


----------



## RandallFlagg

The T said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?
> 
> Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind..._again._
Click to expand...


Hell, world reaction doesn't matter at this point. England has already made a laughing stock of Barry. England has followed us (or we them) for the last 100 years. FINALLY, they have said "no".

Make no mistake about it - this is a HUGE blow to Barry and his cohorts.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RandallFlagg said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.
> 
> Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?
> 
> This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?
> 
> I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.
Click to expand...


Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran. If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.


----------



## RandallFlagg

The T said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?
> 
> 
> 
> He won't do it. Great Britain's Parliament said NO...Now to see how Obama will backtrack and _blame Republicans, Conservatives HERE..._
> 
> _WAIT FOR IT..._
Click to expand...



Im waiting for the inevitable "This is Bush's fault" speech.....


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?
> 
> Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind..._again._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we sure obama is an American and not a Frenchman?
Click to expand...

Just someone exposing himself for his ideology...AND cowardice...He's making a mockery of US in the process...and that infuriates me the damage he's doing to US and our credibility.

Naturally? THIS all is about himself...and he is exposing it to the rest of the world. The man is a nutjob.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?



Probably not.  The orders are already in for components for missiles.  

Trust me, I know.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> WWIII is about to be postponed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show a puppy on national news being gassed with nerve gas like it did with Iraq.
Click to expand...


That was totally ironic. We routinely gas probably millions of dogs and cats every year. Maybe not that much.


----------



## The T

RandallFlagg said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?
> 
> Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind..._again._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, world reaction doesn't matter at this point. England has already made a laughing stock of Barry. England has followed us (or we them) for the last 100 years. FINALLY, they have said "no".
> 
> Make no mistake about it - this is a HUGE blow to Barry and his cohorts.
Click to expand...

 
Yes it is. Expect whatever allies we have left to follow suit.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RandallFlagg said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is absolutely no doubt that Obama is the laughing stock of the world because of his nervous indecision, if he puts down a red line he had to act upon it.... and the time for action was immediately after the gas attack!
> 
> Too late now.... he is blundering along and any respect he might have left is long gone.
> 
> Mr President: Make up you mind one way or another FOR HEAVENS SAKE!! .... and stop consulting Michelle, Valerie,Susan Rice, and Samantha!!!! They are clueless Mr President!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to hear the sound bytes from NPR last night saying he was weighing his options he was given by his advisors before HE makes a decision?
> 
> Any BET HE is waiting to see the world reaction before he makes a decision? He is leading from behind..._again._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, world reaction doesn't matter at this point. England has already made a laughing stock of Barry. England has followed us (or we them) for the last 100 years. FINALLY, they have said "no".
> 
> Make no mistake about it - this is a HUGE blow to Barry and his cohorts.
Click to expand...


Since when does this superpower care about world reaction? The world can only hate you so much, I suppose is their philosophy.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RandallFlagg said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?
> 
> 
> 
> He won't do it. Great Britain's Parliament said NO...Now to see how Obama will backtrack and _blame Republicans, Conservatives HERE..._
> 
> _WAIT FOR IT..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Im waiting for the inevitable "This is Bush's fault" speech.....
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view. Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do. Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war. Hardly anyone has used them since WW1. Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them. We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here. That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into. But that is where we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.
> 
> Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?
> 
> This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?
> 
> I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran._* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*_. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

 
RUT-ROH RORGE!

Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News

Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

RandallFlagg said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could stall for a few days, until Congress returns, if they get the order to Strike before then - stall without (technically) violating orders from the CinC?
> 
> 
> 
> He won't do it. Great Britain's Parliament said NO...Now to see how Obama will backtrack and _blame Republicans, Conservatives HERE..._
> 
> _WAIT FOR IT..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Im waiting for the inevitable "This is Bush's fault" speech.....
Click to expand...


Like 
Bush shouldn't have allowed Saddam chemical weapons to leave Iraq


----------



## Unkotare

Under President Obama, our enemies  have no reason to fear us and our allies have no reason to trust us. 


Some of y'all seem not to have been very fond of him, but under the previous president this was not the case (to say the least).


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to this point. Barry stated (a year ago) that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red" line. The time to "lob" a few missiles was THEN.
> 
> Here's my primary concern: Russia, China and Iran have told us to stay out of it. Syria is a HUGE ally of both Russia AND Iran. I can't help but believe that THEY are feeling the same pressure to back Assad AGAINST the US. At some point, Russia and Iran MUST support Assad. Will this be Russia's and Iran's "red" line also?
> 
> This could potentially become an extremely dangerous standoff. And for what? To overthrow one terrible regime in favor of another terrible regime?
> 
> I don't know. But I surely don't like the way this thing smells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran._* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*_. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RUT-ROH RORGE!
> 
> Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News
> 
> Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?
Click to expand...


No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.

Edit: Sending more ships is pretty much obligatory.


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran._* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*_. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RUT-ROH RORGE!
> 
> Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News
> 
> Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.
Click to expand...

 
I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.

Are YOU serious?


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran._* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*_. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RUT-ROH RORGE!
> 
> Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News
> 
> Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.
> 
> Edit: Sending more ships is pretty much obligatory.
Click to expand...

Lucky for the board I quoted yer original, right? YOU have second thoughts?

Natural reaction? As a matter of course? YES...will Obama back down? YES. The course is clear. The World is calling him out, and his bluff.

How's it feel to have a leader that leads from behind after 3 instances of Syria 'crossing the RED LINE'?

OUR credibility is SUNK. Aren't YOU proud of your President?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> RUT-ROH RORGE!
> 
> Amid Syria tensions, Russia sends more warships to Mediterranean | JPost | Israel News
> 
> Calling for, and expecting Obama to back down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.
> 
> Are YOU serious?
Click to expand...


It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation. 

I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's the underlying problem. 

The only reason we should care is that as the Jihadists and Ba'athists are out playing "Who does Allah Love Best?" innocent civilians are being killed in the crossfire.  

If the UN were to send in peacekeepers to disarm both sides and then sponsor free elections, that would be acceptable.  

But bombing for a few days because you said there would be "consequences" that really doesn't change the situation, or maybe turns the situation to the Jihadists' favor... that's just a bad idea.


----------



## georgephillip

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.


Currently, 116 nays and 4 yeas.
I wonder how that would compare to a similar poll among members of the US Congress.
Should Obama consult congress before killing more civilians in Syria?


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said mounting forces. You can't mount forces at sea. Submarines and warships are always a wildcard, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.
> 
> Are YOU serious?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.
> 
> I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.
Click to expand...

Seems Israel does KNOW...




> Originally Posted by *QuickHitCurepon*
> 
> 
> 
> _Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran.* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong. _


----------



## The T

I suppose MOUNTING SEA FORCES were more than he could bear...after all? The Russian NAVAL FORCES are just trolling for TUNA.


----------



## Kondor3

Russia isn't going to do shit, one way or another... other than maybe to call Assad if they spot an incoming cruise missile.

They don't have that kind of muscle and would get massacred if they were foolish enough to shoot first.

Compared to US assets in the Mediterranean Basin and Europe in general, and those that can be pulled in from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans on damned-short notice, he Soviet presence in the Eastern Med is a flea.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see... NAVAL forces are just out pleasure-boating...looking to catch TUNA! Got'cha.
> 
> Are YOU serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.
> 
> I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems Israel does KNOW...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *QuickHitCurepon*
> 
> 
> 
> _Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran.* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong. _
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.


----------



## Kondor3

I'd rather we not find ourselves obliged to learn the truth of Russian weakness in the Med, mind you, but there's my two-and-a-half-cents-worth, for whatever little good it will do.


----------



## dilloduck

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.
> 
> I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Israel does KNOW...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *QuickHitCurepon*
> 
> 
> 
> _Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran.* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
Click to expand...



mount1


/mount/


verb

verb: mount;&#8195;3rd person present: mounts;&#8195;past tense: mounted;&#8195;past participle: mounted;&#8195;gerund or present participle: mounting



1. 



climb up (stairs, a hill, or other rising surface).


"he mounted the steps to the front door"


synonyms: go up, ascend, climb (up), scale More


"he mounted the stairs" 



antonyms: descend 




climb or move up onto (a raised surface).


"the master of ceremonies mounted the platform"


synonyms: climb on to, jump on to, clamber on to, get on to More


"the committee mounted the platform" 





get up on (an animal or bicycle) in order to ride it.



synonyms: get astride, bestride, get on to, hop on to More


"they mounted their horses" 





set (someone) on horseback; provide with a horse.


"she was mounted on a white horse"




(of a male mammal or bird) get on (a female) for the purpose of copulation.





(of the blood or its color) rise into the cheeks.


"feeling the blush mount in her cheeks, she looked down quickly"





2. 



*organize and initiate (a campaign or other significant course of action).*


"the company had successfully mounted takeover bids"


synonyms: organize, stage, prepare, arrange, set up; More 

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0l4.0.0.0.62397...........0.-W567c1JK7k&pbx=1


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends exactly where they are on the sea. Since we'll never know, that is a fruitless conversation.
> 
> I said MOUNTING Russian ground forces and moving them up towards the Syrian border. If they do that, surely we wouldn't invade Syria to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Israel does KNOW...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *QuickHitCurepon*
> 
> 
> 
> _Yea, that sounds good but not something to rely on. We don't care if Iran get into it, since it would provide good practice and maneuvers for Iran for later on. We'd relish an easy solution to Iran.* If Russia does more than protest and actually mounts forces then yea, we wouldn't invade*. But they know if Russia is doing that or not. If Russia doesn't mount forces, I doubt we'll worry about it. I could be wrong. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
Click to expand...

I see the parsing...Naval forces are what they are...are not Sailors warriors as well?

I fail to see it. Do our Naval forces, ANY Naval force escape you and WHAT they are capable of? (And NO I am NOT demeaning ground forces, AIR forces, or anything else. I am amazed at you dismissing their Navy...).

You may stop parsing now. YOU haven't a clue. Force is force regardless where it comes from. They're humans sent by their governments to do damage to opposing humans and their government in whatever capacity.

They are being sent to CALL US OUT because they know Obama will back down.

Clear enough?

~The T,* OUT*.


----------



## The T

Kondor3 said:


> Russia isn't going to do shit, one way or another... other than maybe to call Assad if they spot an incoming cruise missile.
> 
> They don't have that kind of muscle and would get massacred if they were foolish enough to shoot first.
> 
> Compared to US assets in the Mediterranean Basin and Europe in general, and those that can be pulled in from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans on damned-short notice, he Soviet presence in the Eastern Med is a flea.


 
However their weakness? THEY are being sent to intimidate Obama to see what he does next. ALL bets are he will back down. Putin is calling Obama OUT.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Israel does KNOW...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the parsing...Naval forces are what they are...are not Sailors warriors as well?
> 
> I fail to see it. Do our Naval forces, ANY Naval force escape you and WHAT they are capable of? (And NO I am NOT demeaning ground forces, AIR forces, or anything else. I am amazed at you dismissing their Navy...).
> 
> You may stop parsing now. YOU haven't a clue. Force is force regardless where it comes from. They're humans sent by their governments to do damage to opposing humans and their government in whatever capacity.
> 
> They are being sent to CALL US OUT because they know Obama will back down.
> 
> Clear enough?
> 
> ~The T,* OUT*.
Click to expand...


At first, I didn't specify what forces were being mounted, since most people would think of ground forces. When you come up with 2 ships as a mounting force, in my first comment to you, I made it clear I was talking about ground forces. 

If you want to talk about something different than I'm talking about, go ahead, but it's got nothing to do with what I said. Right buddy?

Anyway how could two smaller troop ships designated as not involved in a conflict ever be thought to be mounting a force? LOL


----------



## dilloduck

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the parsing...Naval forces are what they are...are not Sailors warriors as well?
> 
> I fail to see it. Do our Naval forces, ANY Naval force escape you and WHAT they are capable of? (And NO I am NOT demeaning ground forces, AIR forces, or anything else. I am amazed at you dismissing their Navy...).
> 
> You may stop parsing now. YOU haven't a clue. Force is force regardless where it comes from. They're humans sent by their governments to do damage to opposing humans and their government in whatever capacity.
> 
> They are being sent to CALL US OUT because they know Obama will back down.
> 
> Clear enough?
> 
> ~The T,* OUT*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first, I didn't specify what forces were being mounted, since most people would think of ground forces. When you come up with 2 ships as a mounting force, in my first comment to you, I made it clear I was talking about ground forces.
> 
> If you want to talk about something different than I'm talking about, go ahead, but it's got nothing to do with what I said. Right buddy?
> 
> Anyway how could two smaller troop ships designated as not involved in a conflict ever be thought to be mounting a force? LOL
Click to expand...


troop ships ?


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the parsing...Naval forces are what they are...are not Sailors warriors as well?
> 
> I fail to see it. Do our Naval forces, ANY Naval force escape you and WHAT they are capable of? (And NO I am NOT demeaning ground forces, AIR forces, or anything else. I am amazed at you dismissing their Navy...).
> 
> You may stop parsing now. YOU haven't a clue. Force is force regardless where it comes from. They're humans sent by their governments to do damage to opposing humans and their government in whatever capacity.
> 
> They are being sent to CALL US OUT because they know Obama will back down.
> 
> Clear enough?
> 
> ~The T,* OUT*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first, I didn't specify what forces were being mounted, since most people would think of ground forces. When you come up with 2 ships as a mounting force, in my first comment to you, I made it clear I was talking about ground forces.
> 
> If you want to talk about something different than I'm talking about, go ahead, but it's got nothing to do with what I said. Right buddy?
> 
> Anyway how could two smaller troop ships designated as not involved in a conflict ever be thought to be mounting a force? LOL
Click to expand...

NOW backtracking? Really?

~T- OUT.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

dilloduck said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Israel does KNOW...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> mount1
> 
> 
> /mount/
> 
> 
> verb
> 
> verb: mount;&#8195;3rd person present: mounts;&#8195;past tense: mounted;&#8195;past participle: mounted;&#8195;gerund or present participle: mounting
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> climb up (stairs, a hill, or other rising surface).
> 
> 
> "he mounted the steps to the front door"
> 
> 
> synonyms: go up, ascend, climb (up), scale More
> 
> 
> "he mounted the stairs"
> 
> 
> 
> antonyms: descend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> climb or move up onto (a raised surface).
> 
> 
> "the master of ceremonies mounted the platform"
> 
> 
> synonyms: climb on to, jump on to, clamber on to, get on to More
> 
> 
> "the committee mounted the platform"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get up on (an animal or bicycle) in order to ride it.
> 
> 
> 
> synonyms: get astride, bestride, get on to, hop on to More
> 
> 
> "they mounted their horses"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> set (someone) on horseback; provide with a horse.
> 
> 
> "she was mounted on a white horse"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (of a male mammal or bird) get on (a female) for the purpose of copulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (of the blood or its color) rise into the cheeks.
> 
> 
> "feeling the blush mount in her cheeks, she looked down quickly"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> *organize and initiate (a campaign or other significant course of action).*
> 
> 
> "the company had successfully mounted takeover bids"
> 
> 
> synonyms: organize, stage, prepare, arrange, set up; More
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0l4.0.0.0.62397...........0.-W567c1JK7k&pbx=1
Click to expand...


Yea, if you send in an armada, that can be mounting a force.


----------



## The T

*sigh*


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the parsing...Naval forces are what they are...are not Sailors warriors as well?
> 
> I fail to see it. Do our Naval forces, ANY Naval force escape you and WHAT they are capable of? (And NO I am NOT demeaning ground forces, AIR forces, or anything else. I am amazed at you dismissing their Navy...).
> 
> You may stop parsing now. YOU haven't a clue. Force is force regardless where it comes from. They're humans sent by their governments to do damage to opposing humans and their government in whatever capacity.
> 
> They are being sent to CALL US OUT because they know Obama will back down.
> 
> Clear enough?
> 
> ~The T,* OUT*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first, I didn't specify what forces were being mounted, since most people would think of ground forces. When you come up with 2 ships as a mounting force, in my first comment to you, I made it clear I was talking about ground forces.
> 
> If you want to talk about something different than I'm talking about, go ahead, but it's got nothing to do with what I said. Right buddy?
> 
> Anyway how could two smaller troop ships designated as not involved in a conflict ever be thought to be mounting a force? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOW backtracking? Really?
> 
> ~T- OUT.
Click to expand...


No, I never let people misrepresent what I say, even though I know that's real popular on USMB. They never get away with it.


----------



## dilloduck

QuickHitCurepon said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone says mounting forces, they are talking about ground forces, and I clarified that for you. I don't know why you continue to talk about 2 warships Russia sent to the area that they say is unrelated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mount1
> 
> 
> /mount/
> 
> 
> verb
> 
> verb: mount;&#8195;3rd person present: mounts;&#8195;past tense: mounted;&#8195;past participle: mounted;&#8195;gerund or present participle: mounting
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> climb up (stairs, a hill, or other rising surface).
> 
> 
> "he mounted the steps to the front door"
> 
> 
> synonyms: go up, ascend, climb (up), scale More
> 
> 
> "he mounted the stairs"
> 
> 
> 
> antonyms: descend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> climb or move up onto (a raised surface).
> 
> 
> "the master of ceremonies mounted the platform"
> 
> 
> synonyms: climb on to, jump on to, clamber on to, get on to More
> 
> 
> "the committee mounted the platform"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get up on (an animal or bicycle) in order to ride it.
> 
> 
> 
> synonyms: get astride, bestride, get on to, hop on to More
> 
> 
> "they mounted their horses"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> set (someone) on horseback; provide with a horse.
> 
> 
> "she was mounted on a white horse"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (of a male mammal or bird) get on (a female) for the purpose of copulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (of the blood or its color) rise into the cheeks.
> 
> 
> "feeling the blush mount in her cheeks, she looked down quickly"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> *organize and initiate (a campaign or other significant course of action).*
> 
> 
> "the company had successfully mounted takeover bids"
> 
> 
> synonyms: organize, stage, prepare, arrange, set up; More
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0l4.0.0.0.62397...........0.-W567c1JK7k&pbx=1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, if you send in an armada, that can be mounting a force.
Click to expand...


I think these ships only represent part of the force that is being MOUNTED. Russia has other stuff I think.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> *sigh*



Go back and click on one of my comments that you can comprehend. Okay?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

dilloduck said:


> I think these ships only represent part of the force that is being MOUNTED. Russia has other stuff I think.



We are talking about his link about two small troop ships.


----------



## Geaux4it

Look- At the end of the day, this shit is serious. Anytime you get multiple players in close proximity shit happens. Plus, word is the Sanai is becoming into play.

No oil, no peace

Smoke em if you got em

-Geaux


----------



## Kondor3

The T said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to do shit, one way or another... other than maybe to call Assad if they spot an incoming cruise missile.
> 
> They don't have that kind of muscle and would get massacred if they were foolish enough to shoot first.
> 
> Compared to US assets in the Mediterranean Basin and Europe in general, and those that can be pulled in from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans on damned-short notice, he Soviet presence in the Eastern Med is a flea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However their weakness? THEY are being sent to intimidate Obama to see what he does next. ALL bets are he will back down. Putin is calling Obama OUT.
Click to expand...


Well, on the one hand, you've got an ex-KGB operative, karate master, hunter and carnivore...

On the other hand, you've got a community organizer and State legislator from Chicago's South Side who completed a couple of years in his Rookie Term as a US Senator before being anointed by the Party Faithful as the New Messiah and being thrust into a position for which he was totally unprepared...

I wonder which side that Smart Vegas Money would back in a pissing contest?


----------



## Kondor3

Now crossing the Line of Departure... lock and load, ladies...


----------



## The T

Kondor3 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia isn't going to do shit, one way or another... other than maybe to call Assad if they spot an incoming cruise missile.
> 
> They don't have that kind of muscle and would get massacred if they were foolish enough to shoot first.
> 
> Compared to US assets in the Mediterranean Basin and Europe in general, and those that can be pulled in from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans on damned-short notice, he Soviet presence in the Eastern Med is a flea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However their weakness? THEY are being sent to intimidate Obama to see what he does next. ALL bets are he will back down. Putin is calling Obama OUT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, on the one hand, you've got an ex-KGB operative, karate master, hunter and carnivore...
> 
> On the other hand, you've got a community organizer and State legislator from Chicago's South Side who completed a couple of years in his Rookie Term as a US Senator before being anointed by the Party Faithful as the New Messiah and being thrust into a position for which he was totally unprepared...
> 
> I wonder which side that Smart Vegas Money would back in a pissing contest?
Click to expand...

And the ODDS must be astounding. Only a FOOL bets on the latter. These boards are replete with fools, and enablers.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Geaux4it said:


> Look- At the end of the day, this shit is serious. Anytime you get multiple players in close proximity shit happens. Plus, word is the Sanai is bcoming in play.
> 
> No oil, no peace
> 
> Smoke em if you got em
> 
> -Geaux



Caught my attention, alright. 

I'm smokin' like cray today.


----------



## paulitician

This should be taken up in Congress. It should be fully debated. However, it doesn't seem likely that will happen. And that pretty much sums up our Nation these days. The People just don't have much say.


----------



## Kondor3

*Just to put a 'face' on things...*.

*The Russian Navy guided missile cruiser Moskva*, built in 1979, ordinarily part of the Black Sea Fleet, and rumored to be departing the North Atlantic and steaming for the Med...







Russian cruiser Moskva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of a Udaloy (Russian Navy *large anti-submarine ship*) -class destroyer, in this case, the Admiral Panteleyev...






Russian destroyer Admiral Panteleyev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...although the identity and nomenclature of the 'large anti-submarine ship' is not actually known at this point...

...which rounds-out the two (2) ship deployment that has been in the news today.

*===================================

Enough to be troublesome, but not exactly what you'd call 'decisive'.*


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

paulitician said:


> This should be taken up in Congress. It should be fully debated. However, it doesn't seem likely that will happen. And that pretty much sums up our Nation these days. The People just don't have much say.



It was and is probably just a matter of time before desperation set in. Assad is no fruitcake like Kadafi was in a way. He has loads of backing, until all hell breaks loose.

Didn't Hillary Clinton start talking about that line two years ago? It wasn't red at first. They knew Assad would cross one line or another in time. I started shaking my head when the line was introduced. 



antiquity said:


> toshiro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for reminding Middle Easterners how crazy and dangerous Americans are. And it'll stimulate the economy. But really, there's no reason for us to get in on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama hadn't opened his big mouth about a red line that by the way has seem to gotten really, really wide in recent months, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> Obama has almost backed himself and the American people into a corner with that comment and now he has to do something. And if he does the wrong thing and attacks Syria he and his liberal supports will lose political support at home....now we all know he won't do that.
> Case closed.
Click to expand...


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy: Don't do to other nations what we don't want happening to us. We endlessly bomb these countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us. -Ron Paul


----------



## rhodescholar

High_Gravity said:


> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.



I say: "YES!!!"

THere are so many reasons to justify attacking syria, including shwoing the US still has deterrant capability, that we as a nation do not accept people slaughtering cowering women and children trying to hide in their closets, that in a time of need - with people practically begging us to help - we came through, that it is not acceptable to drop chemical weapons on cities, or carpet bomb whole neighborhoods, that anything that hurts syria hurts iran and hezbollah - which is of infinite importance, etc.

For those of you saying we have no dog in this fight, our security interests are not at stake, or pretend that it somehow makes you look intelligent with a foreign policy of isolationism - yes ron paul sycophants, I'm talking down to you - it does not, and you are wrong.

I wanted the fake, empty suit president to hammer syria 2 1/2 years ago, when he first started shooting unarmed protestors, and before the jihadist filth came in, but obama the community activist and orator-in-chief did nothing, as he has for almost 6 years in office. 

I'm just glad France did not ignore our calls for help in 1776, or we'd be a commonwealth instead of a nation of our own.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> This should be taken up in Congress. It should be fully debated. However, it doesn't seem likely that will happen. And that pretty much sums up our Nation these days. The People just don't have much say.



First off, let me open this by saying I fucking hate ron paul, who is a piece of useless shit, and I despise each and every one of his lunatic followers, who have picked up the lyndon larouche  mantle and run with it, dragging many people who should know better but are too lazy to think/research for themselves the full story on almost any topic right into the gutter.

That said, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK what the public or polls say or want, the government, and in particular, the president's job is to LEAD, even if that means doing something that is not popular, which has happened many times in our history.

Politicians who decide actions to take (or not take) based upon polls - especially ones who are not running for office - are useless morons.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

rhodescholar said:


> I'm just glad France did not ignore our calls for help in 1776, or we'd be a commonwealth instead of a nation of our own.



Every country develops at a different rate, and we can't force all these Middle Eastern countries into OUR timeline. A good government can take hundreds of years to develop, but when we topple that process over and over again in different countries, we send the process way back and definitely not forward. There has to be some continuity.


----------



## rhodescholar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Every country develops at a different rate, and we can't force all these Middle Eastern countries into OUR timeline. A good government can take hundreds of years to develop, but when we topple that process over and over again in different countries, we send the process way back and definitely not forward.



Syria as it stands would never be a Western style democracy if we bombed the place so that only one person was left alive, I know that.

But I also know that the US is supposed to stand for something, and allowing what that fucking animal assad, putin and iran have done there is unacceptable.  They have been begging the US and West for help for 3 years.  Yes, Turkey and Saudi arabia should have gotten off their asses, but they are afraid of the terrorist response from iran, whose death cannot come soon enough. 

The reality is that a major war is coming to remove iran's illegal nuclear weapons program in the next 6 months to a year, so we might as well take out their ally in syria now.  Besides, after assad had allowed jihadists to use his country as a primary forward base from which to attack US troops in iraq, he was as good as dead.


----------



## JWBooth

rhodescholar said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say: "YES!!!"
> 
> THere are so many reasons to justify attacking syria, including shwoing the US still has deterrant capability, that we as a nation do not accept people slaughtering cowering women and children trying to hide in their closets, that in a time of need - with people practically begging us to help - we came through, that it is not acceptable to drop chemical weapons on cities, or carpet bomb whole neighborhoods, that anything that hurts syria hurts iran and hezbollah - which is of infinite importance, etc.
> 
> For those of you saying we have no dog in this fight, our security interests are not at stake, or pretend that it somehow makes you look intelligent with a foreign policy of isolationism - yes ron paul sycophants, I'm talking down to you - it does not, and you are wrong.
> 
> I wanted the fake, empty suit president to hammer syria 2 1/2 years ago, when he first started shooting unarmed protestors, and before the jihadist filth came in, but obama the community activist and orator-in-chief did nothing, as he has for almost 6 years in office.
> 
> I'm just glad France did not ignore our calls for help in 1776, or we'd be a commonwealth instead of a nation of our own.
Click to expand...


Well, suit up sparky, load up, head over, and kick some Assad butt.

keyboard kommandos, always standing ready for somebody else to bleed


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

rhodescholar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every country develops at a different rate, and we can't force all these Middle Eastern countries into OUR timeline. A good government can take hundreds of years to develop, but when we topple that process over and over again in different countries, we send the process way back and definitely not forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria as it stands would never be a Western style democracy if we bombed the place so that only one person was left alive, I know that.
Click to expand...


You want the whole world to be so? Ain't gonna happen.



rhodescholar said:


> But I also know that the US is supposed to stand for something, and allowing what that fucking animal assad, putin and iran have done there is unacceptable.  They have been begging the US and West for help for 3 years.  Yes, Turkey and Saudi arabia should have gotten off their asses, but they are afraid of the terrorist response from iran, whose death cannot come soon enough.



All countries go through disastrous periods like our Civil War. Every country has sovereignty and the right to learn its lessons. Do you want to fix China next? Dictatorships throughout the world through the centuries have always been plentiful. Why single out a few small Middle Eastern countries that are pushovers? Power and oil.



rhodescholar said:


> The reality is that a major war is coming to remove iran's illegal nuclear weapons program in the next 6 months to a year, so we might as well take out their ally in syria now.  Besides, after assad had allowed jihadists to use his country as a primary forward base from which to attack US troops in iraq, he was as good as dead.



I once supported war with Iran long ago, but after all these wars, I have changed my stance and say just let them get the nukes. Smaller countries will get them sooner or later. Enough is enough.

We have plenty of criminals, drug traffickers, homeless throw-aways, etc. here. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.


----------



## flacaltenn

rhodescholar said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say: "YES!!!"
> 
> THere are so many reasons to justify attacking syria, including shwoing the US still has deterrant capability, that we as a nation do not accept people slaughtering cowering women and children trying to hide in their closets, that in a time of need - with people practically begging us to help - we came through, that it is not acceptable to drop chemical weapons on cities, or carpet bomb whole neighborhoods, that anything that hurts syria hurts iran and hezbollah - which is of infinite importance, etc.
> 
> For those of you saying we have no dog in this fight, our security interests are not at stake, or pretend that it somehow makes you look intelligent with a foreign policy of isolationism - yes ron paul sycophants, I'm talking down to you - it does not, and you are wrong.
> 
> I wanted the fake, empty suit president to hammer syria 2 1/2 years ago, when he first started shooting unarmed protestors, and before the jihadist filth came in, but obama the community activist and orator-in-chief did nothing, as he has for almost 6 years in office.
> 
> I'm just glad France did not ignore our calls for help in 1776, or we'd be a commonwealth instead of a nation of our own.
Click to expand...


Syria ain't the America Colonies -- and we are not France.

This is another unbelievable vote for the US to act like the RedNeck bros down the street riding the neighbors and waving AR's in the air.. A couple face tattoos and a bottle of Jim Beam.. 

Just to make people fear us.. Or what we might do. 

You got a death wish for Assad? Good -- go rogue and join the resistance. CALL US when you decide who the "ben franklin" appointment that the "rebels" choose.. 

We should NEVER enter into a civil conflict abroad until we can identify a LEADERSHIP faction and negotiate with that LEADERSHIP faction and have some semblance of a promise that THEY are in charge of the rebellion... (like the French did in 1777).

Oh --- most importantly ---- they need to ASK US to help them... 

Think the rebels would kick the jihadis to the curb in exchange for our help?? 

*THAT'S A PREREQUISITE for even PONDERING going to war on their behalf.. *


----------



## rhodescholar

JWBooth said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, suit up sparky, load up, head over, and kick some Assad butt.keyboard kommandos, always standing ready for somebody else to bleed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good typical 3rd grade response from the mentally weak ron paul crowd.  Sorry sweetie, we have a VOLUNTEER army, you might have heard.  Oh but that's right, I did serve - did you pussy?
> 
> Come back with a real argument when your momma gives you one.
Click to expand...


----------



## rhodescholar

flacaltenn said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got a death wish for Assad? Good -- go rogue and join the resistance. CALL US when you decide who the "ben franklin" appointment that the "rebels" choose..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's avoid the 3rd-grade responses, I don't need to become a cop to improve crime fighting in my area, no more than i need to be a teacher to improve schools.  Bring a more intelligent argument, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should NEVER enter into a civil conflict abroad until we can identify a LEADERSHIP faction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has existed for almost a year, called the Syrian national council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh --- most importantly ---- they need to ASK US to help them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrian rebel leader asks Israel, US for help | The Times of Israel
> FSA commander asks what are Syria's friends in the West waiting for? | The Majalla Magazine
> Syrian rebels seek help waging civil war ? USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think the rebels would kick the jihadis to the curb in exchange for our help??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free Syrian army clashes with jihadists in wake of commander's assassination | World news | The Observer
> 
> READ UP AND LEARN.
Click to expand...


----------



## JWBooth

rhodescholar said:


> Sorry sweetie, we have a VOLUNTEER army, you might have heard.  Oh but that's right, I did serve - did you pussy?


 You want a war, volunteer already.
Handing out peanut butter sandwiches for the state guards hardly counts sparky, but since that's all you've got, and all you'll ever have, run with it.
Fuckin weekend warriors.


----------



## Kondor3

There is no compelling argument or casus belli for attacking Syria.

Let 'em rot, or, more specifically, let the Euros handle this stuff for once.

It's their backyard, and they been skating under our Protection Umbrella long enough to be recovered by now.

We're still engaged in one war, just finished another, our wallet is close to empty, the nation is rather war-weary and skeptical as hell, and we just don't need another rumble right now...

We've got enough on our plate trying to conjure-up a halfway decent economic recovery out of the economic wreckage of recent years.

Let's sit this one out.


----------



## rhodescholar

JWBooth said:


> You want a war, volunteer already.



Asshole, STFU already, moron.  I served more years than your useless existence has been in total.

I don't need to join anything, douchebag - the army is volunteer, they knew they might have to fight wars when they joined.  Come back with a real argument, chimp.


----------



## Kondor3

I said something similar, earlier today...

*95 to 96 percent* of our board membership who took the survey, all *reject the possibility of war*...

Votes from the Left, Right and Center, and all damned-near unanimous, for once...

*God, I'm proud of this bunch, today...*





 ...


----------



## JWBooth

rhodescholar said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want a war, volunteer already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, STFU already, moron.  I served more years than your useless existence has been in total.
Click to expand...


Pfffffffft

your "service" is duly noted


----------



## rhodescholar

Kondor3 said:


> I said something similar, earlier today...



And only the sheep and the clueless follow the herd.  Hopefully, they'll keep doing that with the stock market too, so i can keep raking in the dollars.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Compared to how we burned tens of thousands of Vietnamese with Napalm and Agent Orange, this is strictly small-time at best.

Short video about UN inspectors also:

Syrian opposition claims napalm attack on civilians in Aleppo | News.com.au



> SYRIA'S opposition coalition says President Bashar al-Assad's forces had dropped phosphorus bombs and napalm on civilians in rural Aleppo, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens.
> 
> The alleged attack occurred as the United States and its European and Middle Eastern partners honed plans to punish Assad for a major poison gas attack last week on the suburbs of the capital, Damascus, that killed hundreds of civilians.
> 
> US TO GO IT ALONE WITH STRIKE SYRIA
> 
> Video footage uploaded on the Internet, apparently of Monday's attack, showed doctors frantically smearing white cream on the reddened skin of several screaming people, many of them young boys.
> 
> The report has not been independently confirmed. There have been previous unconfirmed reports of the use of phosphorus bombs by Assad's forces during Syria's conflict. ...



Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza.

Video shows evidence of phosphorus bombs in Gaza | World news | theguardian.com


----------



## paulitician

JWBooth said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone says yes they better explain themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say: "YES!!!"
> 
> THere are so many reasons to justify attacking syria, including shwoing the US still has deterrant capability, that we as a nation do not accept people slaughtering cowering women and children trying to hide in their closets, that in a time of need - with people practically begging us to help - we came through, that it is not acceptable to drop chemical weapons on cities, or carpet bomb whole neighborhoods, that anything that hurts syria hurts iran and hezbollah - which is of infinite importance, etc.
> 
> For those of you saying we have no dog in this fight, our security interests are not at stake, or pretend that it somehow makes you look intelligent with a foreign policy of isolationism - yes ron paul sycophants, I'm talking down to you - it does not, and you are wrong.
> 
> I wanted the fake, empty suit president to hammer syria 2 1/2 years ago, when he first started shooting unarmed protestors, and before the jihadist filth came in, but obama the community activist and orator-in-chief did nothing, as he has for almost 6 years in office.
> 
> I'm just glad France did not ignore our calls for help in 1776, or we'd be a commonwealth instead of a nation of our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, suit up sparky, load up, head over, and kick some Assad butt.
> 
> keyboard kommandos, always standing ready for somebody else to bleed
Click to expand...


Good point. Let em spend their own blood & treasure. I'm good with that. It's their call. But don't force all Americans to pay for yet another useless War.


----------



## paulitician

Kondor3 said:


> I said something similar, earlier today...
> 
> *95 to 96 percent* of our board membership who took the survey, all *reject the possibility of war*...
> 
> Votes from the Left, Right and Center, and all damned-near unanimous, for once...
> 
> *God, I'm proud of this bunch, today...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, the most one-sided Poll i've ever seen here at USMB. It's great to see. The People don't want or need this War. National Poll numbers are showing that too. The Government/Media Complex is doing its best to whip up support, but so far it's failing miserably. The People just aren't buying it this time. But i have a feeling it's gonna happen anyway. 

We've given too much power to our President. This current President sees no reason to debate much in Congress. In a sense, he's gone rogue. Now i hear he's not even going to seek his beloved UN's approval. We as a Nation need to get our Presidents back in check. We need to balance the power again. Congress needs to assert itself. I guess we'll see where this one goes. I still see War with Syria, but it's great to see so many Americans speaking out against another useless War. I'm actually encouraged.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

No thanks.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Our allies have said no.

No doubt Obama is regretting that "red line" comment.

This would be unilateral and an absolute disaster.

.


----------



## hjmick

The Rabbi said:


> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.




Hitler didn't use chemical weapons... on the battlefield.


The fact of the matter is, no one yet knows who pulled the trigger on the chems, Assad? Some rogue element within Assad's structure? The rebels? This is a lose-lose situation. Attack Assad, support al Qaeda. Hit the al Qaeda backed rebels, support an asshole.

I say no, best to stay out. No matter what we as a nation do, we'll be criticized for it, and probably for it attacked as well.


----------



## High_Gravity

122 to 6? is this the most lop sided poll ever on this site?


----------



## paulitician

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Our allies have said no.
> 
> No doubt Obama is regretting that "red line" comment.
> 
> This would be unilateral and an absolute disaster.
> 
> .



Yeah i'm no big fan of the Brits, but it was fascinating watching their System work. Now we need to get our Politicians back to following the Constitution and allowing our System to work too. Because it really does work.


----------



## paulitician

High_Gravity said:


> 122 to 6? is this the most lop sided poll ever on this site?



I think so.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Kondor3 said:


> I said something similar, earlier today...
> 
> *95 to 96 percent* of our board membership who took the survey, all *reject the possibility of war*...
> 
> Votes from the Left, Right and Center, and all damned-near unanimous, for once...
> 
> *God, I'm proud of this bunch, today...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm for wars that make sense! This one doesn't make sense. 

End of story.


----------



## hjmick

Technically it's +1 for the nays. 

I make it a policy not to vote in public polls...


----------



## TemplarKormac

But one can't help but notice the irony. Obama is doing the exact same things that Liberals went after Bush for. Obama is being forced to pursue policy he once as a Senator opposed, staunchly. I would wager that if he did go into Syria, some liberals here would defend that decision. I'm not sold. Liberals need to criticize Obama just as badly as Bush if he does do it.


----------



## Circe

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Our allies have said no.
> 
> No doubt Obama is regretting that "red line" comment.
> 
> This would be unilateral and an absolute disaster.





No, the news today says France is willing to hit them.

Syria used to be a French colony, so really, they are responsible in a way. Sort of.

Let the frogs do it, if they want to. Not us.


----------



## Edgetho

Kondor3 said:


> I said something similar, earlier today...
> 
> *95 to 96 percent* of our board membership who took the survey, all *reject the possibility of war*...
> 
> Votes from the Left, Right and Center, and all damned-near unanimous, for once...
> 
> *God, I'm proud of this bunch, today...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I voted yes.

For a variety of reasons.  For one, I think it will show what an imbecile the Stuttering Clusterfukk is.  And for another, killing Islamists isn't really a bad thing.  They're all crazy murdering douchebags anyway.

And for another, it will make the Stuttering Clusterfukk look like the douche he is.  Not to mention make him look like the hypocrite he is.  And for another thing, make him look like the limp-wristed fag he is.

And for another, make the whole world laugh at him, even some of his own party (sans the cult-worshippers, of which there are plenty on this Board)

And for another thing......  Oh yeah, it will be interesting to see how the Knee Pad wearing DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM spins this one.....

I think they go with, "Well, Congress wasn't in Session, soooo...."

Or they'll simply ignore it.

I think it's a minor strike.  Dead civilians will be paraded around for the Reporters, which the Reporters will dutifully ignore and the american DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM will also ignore.

And the "Congress wasn't in Session" excuse run a few times and then they ignore it until something else comes up and they'll spend all their time and energy on that.....  Maybe, Miley Cyrus Twerking or something else that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is interested in.

What kind of scumbag votes for a scumbag like hussein obama?

Amazing


----------



## TemplarKormac

Circe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Our allies have said no.
> 
> No doubt Obama is regretting that "red line" comment.
> 
> This would be unilateral and an absolute disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the news today says France is willing to hit them.
> 
> Syria used to be a French colony, so really, they are responsible in a way. Sort of.
> 
> Let the frogs do it, if they want to. Not us.
Click to expand...


If any EU country decides to hit Syria, you can bet Obama will use that as an excuse to follow suit.


----------



## Circe

The T said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> WWIII is about to be postponed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...
Click to expand...



I know this is going to happen.......

We are so going to get propagandized, unless the big 0 decides to drop the whole thing.


----------



## dilloduck

Circe said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> WWIII is about to be postponed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is going to happen.......
> 
> We are so going to get propagandized, unless the big 0 decides to drop the whole thing.
Click to expand...


And the just made it legal too----what a coincidence.

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans | The Cable


----------



## paulitician

TemplarKormac said:


> But one can't help but notice the irony. Obama is doing the exact same things that Liberals went after Bush for. Obama is being forced to pursue policy he once as a Senator opposed, staunchly. I would wager that if he did go into Syria, some liberals here would defend that decision. I'm not sold. Liberals need to criticize Obama just as badly as Bush if he does do it.



Unfortunately, the 'Party before Country' mentality will not allow that. I'm a bit disappointed in the 'Anti-War Left.' They should be much more vocal in their opposition. I'm currently seeing a very weak somewhat muted response. They need to get it together. Their credibility is on the line.


----------



## The T

TemplarKormac said:


> But one can't help but notice the irony. Obama is doing the exact same things that Liberals went after Bush for. Obama is being forced to pursue policy he once as a Senator opposed, staunchly. I would wager that if he did go into Syria, some liberals here would defend that decision. I'm not sold. Liberals need to criticize Obama just as badly as Bush if he does do it.


 Hard to do when your life is lived in the double standard.


----------



## dilloduck

The T said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one can't help but notice the irony. Obama is doing the exact same things that Liberals went after Bush for. Obama is being forced to pursue policy he once as a Senator opposed, staunchly. I would wager that if he did go into Syria, some liberals here would defend that decision. I'm not sold. Liberals need to criticize Obama just as badly as Bush if he does do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to do when your life is lived in the double standard.
Click to expand...


Not hard for a sociopath....


----------



## The T

Circe said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> WWIII is about to be postponed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not fitting their narrative, is it? The people are awake. Can't have that. Let's see in the next few days what other tragic crap these elitist asswipes can cook up to avert our eyes and make us want to do it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is going to happen.......
> 
> We are so going to get propagandized, unless the big 0 decides to drop the whole thing.
Click to expand...

He is still dragging his feet...the clock is ticking...


----------



## rhodescholar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza.
> 
> Video shows evidence of phosphorus bombs in Gaza | World news | theguardian.com



First, the use of white phosphorous is not illegal.  Why don't you mention how sri lanka slaughtered 5,000 civilians, or russia killed tens of thousands in chechnya, or china has mass murdered tens of thousands in tibet...

Why is israel mentioned?  Agenda, perhaps?


----------



## flacaltenn

rhodescholar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got a death wish for Assad? Good -- go rogue and join the resistance. CALL US when you decide who the "ben franklin" appointment that the "rebels" choose..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's avoid the 3rd-grade responses, I don't need to become a cop to improve crime fighting in my area, no more than i need to be a teacher to improve schools.  Bring a more intelligent argument, please.
> 
> 
> 
> It has existed for almost a year, called the Syrian national council.
> 
> 
> 
> Syrian rebel leader asks Israel, US for help | The Times of Israel
> FSA commander asks what are Syria's friends in the West waiting for? | The Majalla Magazine
> Syrian rebels seek help waging civil war ? USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think the rebels would kick the jihadis to the curb in exchange for our help??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free Syrian army clashes with jihadists in wake of commander's assassination | World news | The Observer
> 
> READ UP AND LEARN.
Click to expand...


What kind of blood-thirsty dupe are you?  You want the US believe that a group of Ex-Patriot Syrian Eggheads who haven't seen Damascus in years and are living in Paris, Princeton, Belgium and London are IN CONTROL of this revolution?? 

·         ABDULAHAD ASTEPHO, Assyrian Democratic Organisation, Belgium #
·         ABDULBASET SIEDA, Kurdish independent, Sweden, President #
·         Abdulelah Almalham, tribal leader, Saudi Arabia #
·         Abdulhamid al Atassi, Damascus Declaration, Paris; National Peoples&#8217; Party
·         Abdulkarim Bakkar, &#8220;national figure&#8221;, Saudi Arabia
·         Ahmad al Assi al Jarba, Independent, Saudi Arabia
·         AHMAD RAMADAN, National Bloc, London; longstanding Hamas activist *
·         Ahmad Sayed Yusef, Muslim Brotherhood, Jeddah *
·         Anas al Abdah, Damascus Declaration; Movement for Justice and Development, UK *
·         Bashal al Heraki, National Bloc, Amman, Jordan; Assistant to Imad al Din Rashid *
·         BASMA KODMANI, National Bloc, Paris, spokesperson; leftwing technocrat; the only woman in the inner circle
·         Bassam Ishak, &#8220;national figure&#8221;, Cairo
·         BURHAN GHALIOUN, Independent, Paris #
·         Geroge Sabra, Christian Independent #
·         Hamza Alchamali, LCC, Germany
·         Hozan Ibrahim, LCC, Hasaka (currently living in Berlin as political refugee), Kurdish
·         Imaldeldin Al Racheed, National Bloc; Links to the Sourourist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood *
·         Jabr Alshoufi, Damascus Declaration, Cairo
·         KHALID AL HAJ SALEH, National Bloc, USA
·         Khalil Al Haj Saleh, LCC, Paris
·         Mohamad Bassam Yusef, Muslim Brotherhood, UK *
·         MOHAMAD FARUQ TAYFUR, Muslim Brotherhood *
·         Mohamad Walid, &#8220;national figure&#8221;
·         Mohammed Yasser Almosadi, Muslim Brotherhood, Jeddah *
·         MOTI&#8217; AL-BATIN, National Bloc, Imam of Dera&#8217;a Mosque *
·         Najib Ghadbian, National Bloc, USA; University of Arkansas, Member of National Initiative for Change
·         Nazir Hakim, Muslim Brotherhood, France *
·         Sadiq Jalal al Azm, &#8220;national figure&#8221;, Princeton University, USA
·         Saied Lahdo, Assyrians Organisation, Netherlands #
·         SAMIR NASHAR, Damascus Declaration, Istanbul; National Liberal Alliance (originally secular but now regarded by some as becoming &#8220;Islamist&#8221
·         Serdar Murad, Kurdish Bloc, Iraq
·         Wael Merza, Secretary General *
·         Zouhair Salem, &#8220;national figure&#8221;

Not only that -- but the dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood in this council should worry anyone hoping for "openness" and "democracy" in their plans.. 

These academics and rich political refugees are NOT in control of ANYTHING. And they couldn't kick out the jihadis in exchange for foreign military aid if they all held their breath for a week.. 

We should run to aid these posers? And not any of the guys actually FIGHTING to depose Assad? Seems to me -- we should have learned our lesson about disposing "dictators" who keep the lid on extremists.. .


----------



## Kondor3

Edgetho said:


> "..._I voted yes. For a variety of reasons_..."



Indeed.



> "..._For one, I think it will show what an imbecile the Stuttering Clusterfukk is_..."



*I do not believe that it is worth risking (or losing) the life of one single young man nor woman in our Armed Forces, in order to make a political point, or to show somebody up; nor to expend costly military assets nor high-priced munitions for such political showboating; especially with no goals in mind nor eye towards victory.*



> "..._And for another, killing Islamists isn't really a bad thing. They're all crazy murdering douchebags anywa_y..."



I agree, in large part, that Islamists (_Militant, Radical Muslims leveraging their religion for political gain_) deserve some of those appelations, but we would *NOT BE TARGETING ISLAMISTS*; rather, we would be targeting an Arab-Muslim ultra-conservative (damned-near totalitarian, autocratic) regime *ON BEHALF OF THE ISLAMISTS*, so, that's not actually a factor after all.



> "..._And for another, it will make the Stuttering Clusterfukk look like the douche he is. Not to mention make him look like the hypocrite he is. And for another thing, make him look like the limp-wristed fag he is. And for another, make the whole world laugh at him, even some of his own party (sans the cult-worshippers, of which there are plenty on this Board)_..."



Again... see my 'I do not believe that it is worth risking..." counterpoint, above.



> "..._And for another thing......  Oh yeah, it will be interesting to see how the Knee Pad wearing DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM spins this one_..."



Consider my "I do not believe that it is worth risking..." comment to have been copied and modified with respect to exploring reactions on the part of the media.



> "..._I think they go with, 'Well, Congress wasn't in Session, soooo...' Or they'll simply ignore it_..."



Possibly. But The People will know better this time.

*==============================*

And this is from someone (me) who could not bring himself to vote for either McSame nor Mittens, so he held his nose and voted for Obumble both times, as the lesser of two evils, on two separate occasions.

And this from someone (me) who thinks the Afghan War was Righteous, but badly bungled, and who thought that the Iraq War was Bullshit, and badly bungled, who is neither Hawk nor Dove but who knows that his beloved country is War-Weary when he goes out-and-about in the world and who knows that we should not be fighting two wars on two fronts (Afghanistan, Syria) but rather finish one, and rest up, before deciding to brawl again, unless we are up against the wall and have no other choice (_and this case does not qualify in that fashion_).

There is no pressing and compelling argument or case to be made, in either the Strategic nor the Tactical arenas, that drives us to intervene in the wake of so much popular opposition by such a vast and overwhelming number of our wise, thoughtful fellow citizens of all elements of the political spectrum... Left, Right and Center.

When the numbers skew that lopsidedly, I think to myself: that is the Great Wisdom of the Common Man manifesting itself with such an overwhelming voice that those stalking the Halls of Power are well-advised to heed and to take as seriously as electoral defeat.

I stand by my earlier remarks... I am proud of our people here... I was one of the earlier voters and had no idea it would turn out this way, but... I stand with the vast majority of our people here, in this important matter.


----------



## deltex1

Edgetho said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said something similar, earlier today...
> 
> *95 to 96 percent* of our board membership who took the survey, all *reject the possibility of war*...
> 
> Votes from the Left, Right and Center, and all damned-near unanimous, for once...
> 
> *God, I'm proud of this bunch, today...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I voted yes.
> 
> For a variety of reasons.  For one, I think it will show what an imbecile the Stuttering Clusterfukk is.  And for another, killing Islamists isn't really a bad thing.  They're all crazy murdering douchebags anyway.
> 
> And for another, it will make the Stuttering Clusterfukk look like the douche he is.  Not to mention make him look like the hypocrite he is.  And for another thing, make him look like the limp-wristed fag he is.
> 
> And for another, make the whole world laugh at him, even some of his own party (sans the cult-worshippers, of which there are plenty on this Board)
> 
> And for another thing......  Oh yeah, it will be interesting to see how the Knee Pad wearing DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM spins this one.....
> 
> I think they go with, "Well, Congress wasn't in Session, soooo...."
> 
> Or they'll simply ignore it.
> 
> I think it's a minor strike.  Dead civilians will be paraded around for the Reporters, which the Reporters will dutifully ignore and the american DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM will also ignore.
> 
> And the "Congress wasn't in Session" excuse run a few times and then they ignore it until something else comes up and they'll spend all their time and energy on that.....  Maybe, Miley Cyrus Twerking or something else that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is interested in.
> 
> What kind of scumbag votes for a scumbag like hussein obama?
> 
> Amazing
Click to expand...

I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should not drop a dime on Assad.


----------



## flacaltenn

deltex1 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said something similar, earlier today...
> 
> *95 to 96 percent* of our board membership who took the survey, all *reject the possibility of war*...
> 
> Votes from the Left, Right and Center, and all damned-near unanimous, for once...
> 
> *God, I'm proud of this bunch, today...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I voted yes.
> 
> For a variety of reasons.  For one, I think it will show what an imbecile the Stuttering Clusterfukk is.  And for another, killing Islamists isn't really a bad thing.  They're all crazy murdering douchebags anyway.
> 
> And for another, it will make the Stuttering Clusterfukk look like the douche he is.  Not to mention make him look like the hypocrite he is.  And for another thing, make him look like the limp-wristed fag he is.
> 
> And for another, make the whole world laugh at him, even some of his own party (sans the cult-worshippers, of which there are plenty on this Board)
> 
> And for another thing......  Oh yeah, it will be interesting to see how the Knee Pad wearing DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM spins this one.....
> 
> I think they go with, "Well, Congress wasn't in Session, soooo...."
> 
> Or they'll simply ignore it.
> 
> I think it's a minor strike.  Dead civilians will be paraded around for the Reporters, which the Reporters will dutifully ignore and the american DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM will also ignore.
> 
> And the "Congress wasn't in Session" excuse run a few times and then they ignore it until something else comes up and they'll spend all their time and energy on that.....  Maybe, Miley Cyrus Twerking or something else that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is interested in.
> 
> What kind of scumbag votes for a scumbag like hussein obama?
> 
> Amazing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should drop a dime on Assad.
Click to expand...


".... drop a dime on Assad... ".. 

I know I'll get blowback on this --- but I see it more as a "drive-by shooting".. With no real outcome to be expected. 

In the VERY LEAST --- you'd think our "mental midgets" in charge of Foreign Policy would make some concrete demand. Like ---- 

_By 7:30 hours on Tues -- we want 4 tons of viable Chemical weapon cannisters and specially fitted warhead capsules on the DOCK at this Syrian Port for pick-up by NATO forces. 
Failure to comply with this transfer of materials WILL result in strategic reduction of the Syrian capability to wage war by Tues evening.. Thanks for your attention to this matter. 

John Frog Kerrey --- US Sec. of State.. _


Wouldn't ever happen that way --- would it? Our foreign policy CONTINUES to suck and suck badly. For the larger part of my life..


----------



## Kondor3

deltex1 said:


> "..._I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should drop a dime on Assad._"



I think it's safe to say that when I saw the "War - Yes or No?" tagline, that I construed that to mean: "_No war, nor warlike nor hostile intervention, at this time. Stand down_."...

As did, I will wager, most folks around here over the age of 10...

But, just for clarification's sake...

And speaking only for myself...

I vote: _No War. No military intervention whatsoever at this time. No dropping of dimes. Back off. Stand down. Go back to DEFCON 4._

Others can speak for themselves.

Hope that thelps.


----------



## Vox

hjmick said:


> Technically it's +1 for the nays.
> 
> I make it a policy not to vote in public polls...



oh, c'mon, don't be so rigid make an exception


----------



## Zona

If McCain had one, we would be in ww4 by now.  This is why I don't understand republicans.  That idiot could have won.


----------



## Vox

Zona said:


> If McCain had one, we would be in ww4 by now.  This is why I don't understand republicans.  That idiot could have won.



it is YOU who are an idiot


----------



## Samson

Zona said:


> If McCain had one, we would be in ww4 by now.  This is why I don't understand republicans.  That idiot could have won.



Once again you've skillfully combined the incomprehensible, with the off-topical, as a brilliant diversionary tactic.



Bravo.


----------



## The T

Zona said:


> If McCain had one, we would be in ww4 by now. This is why I don't understand republicans. That idiot could have won.


 What is it with you Statists and 'what if's' that aren't germain and never have been?

Just gotta drone in your grey areas, right? Fuck Reality...Reality is...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Get with the program and reality. STOP trying to make excuses and making yourself feel better for voting for your hero that has the world on fire that you know is wrong.

DEAL?


----------



## Katzndogz

I just saw Duncan Hunter, CA congressman.  He just returned from a tour of the middle east.  obama has completely destroyed our relationship with Jordan.  AQ fighters are crossing the border to destabilize Jordan so they completely closed the border.  Refugees have nowhere to go.  Turkey did the same thing and turned their gun batteries toward Syria.  

obama imagines that he can send over a few cruise missiles then go home.  This shows every indication of being a butterfly effect.  

Who knows how many people are going to suffer for his hurt feelings?


----------



## Desperado

rhodescholar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza.
> 
> Video shows evidence of phosphorus bombs in Gaza | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the use of white phosphorous is not illegal.  Why don't you mention how sri lanka slaughtered 5,000 civilians, or russia killed tens of thousands in chechnya, or china has mass murdered tens of thousands in tibet...
> 
> Why is israel mentioned?  Agenda, perhaps?
Click to expand...


If you are talking about killing civilians, does it really matter what they used?
 Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza, sri lanka slaughtered 5,000 civilians,
russia killed tens of thousands in chechnya, and china has mass murdered tens of thousands in tibet, 
So the question is where was the out cry for those murders?
What makes Syria different?


----------



## rhodescholar

flacaltenn said:


> What kind of blood-thirsty dupe are you?  You want the US believe that a group of Ex-Patriot Syrian Eggheads who haven't seen Damascus in years and are living in Paris, Princeton, Belgium and London are IN CONTROL of this revolution??... We should run to aid these posers? And not any of the guys actually FIGHTING to depose Assad? Seems to me -- we should have learned our lesson about disposing "dictators" who keep the lid on extremists.. .



Oh yeah, that makes sense, expat syrians living abroad are the ones who have been able to sustain an intense, ongoing civil war for almost three full years, yeah ok.

A sure sign of someone who has no fucking clue on this conflict is to hear them say "we're helping the rebels, who are al qaeda".  If there was not massive, indigenous support for the FSA, there is no way on earth this conflict could have lasted this long.  The FSA is estimated at over 150,000 strong, with maybe 5-6,000 jihadists AT MOST.

It would not have been possible to sustain the conflict this long without widespread, local support.


----------



## deltex1

Kondor3 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should drop a dime on Assad._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's safe to say that when I saw the "War - Yes or No?" tagline, that I construed that to mean: "_No war, nor warlike nor hostile intervention, at this time. Stand down_."...
> 
> As did, I will wager, most folks around here over the age of 10...
> 
> But, just for clarification's sake...
> 
> And speaking only for myself...
> 
> I vote: _No War. No military intervention whatsoever at this time. No dropping of dimes. Back off. Stand down. Go back to DEFCON 4._
> 
> Others can speak for themselves.
> 
> Hope that thelps.
Click to expand...


So that means no red lines no mo no mo?????


----------



## rhodescholar

Desperado said:


> If you are talking about killing civilians, does it really matter what they used? Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza, sri lanka slaughtered 5,000 civilians,russia killed tens of thousands in chechnya, and china has mass murdered tens of thousands in tibet, So the question is where was the out cry for those murders? What makes Syria different?



Every one of those conflicts was a war of choice, whereas israel was fighting to stop thousands of rockets continuing to strike it from gaza.

Chechnya did not threaten the existence of russia, tibet did not threaten the existence of china, the tamil tigers did not threaten the existence of sri lanka...

Syria is different because the world CAN do something to stop the mass slaughter of women and children.  Had the West threatened russia or china, it could have started a global conflict, an issue not applicable to syria.


----------



## Rozman

Greta covered for O'Reilly and I got some more info....
What exactly will launching  a few missles accomplish???

Even Britain said no way.
It seems we don't have proof that chemical weapons were used...


----------



## The T

Rozman said:


> Greta covered for O'Reilly and I got some more info....
> What exactly will launching a few missles accomplish???
> 
> Even Britain said no way.
> It seems we don't have proof that chemical weapons were used...


At least in the 'unclassified documents' John F'ing Kerry (who served in Viet Nam), referred to...that were released for consumption to the masses...(And what of that 'Classified Briefing' Congresscritters are about to endure)?

It's a RUSE.

I don't trust ANY of it.


----------



## Vox

deltex1 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should drop a dime on Assad._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's safe to say that when I saw the "War - Yes or No?" tagline, that I construed that to mean: "_No war, nor warlike nor hostile intervention, at this time. Stand down_."...
> 
> As did, I will wager, most folks around here over the age of 10...
> 
> But, just for clarification's sake...
> 
> And speaking only for myself...
> 
> I vote: _No War. No military intervention whatsoever at this time. No dropping of dimes. Back off. Stand down. Go back to DEFCON 4._
> 
> Others can speak for themselves.
> 
> Hope that thelps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that means no red lines no mo no mo?????
Click to expand...


that means - somebody else will have to cover this time.
The world referee needs a break


----------



## Kondor3

deltex1 said:


> "..._So that means no red lines no mo no mo?_"



God only knows how you extrapolated that outcome from the point-of-departure, but...

No... that does not mean 'no more red lines', or 'lines in the sand'...

We merely need to do a better job of determining when it is appropriate to draw such a line...

And when it is not...

This way, we avoid saber-rattling over things that few people support or give two shits about...

Obumble did a bad job of determining when to draw such a line in the sand...

He was 180-degrees-out from his Constituency... Left, Right and Center...

Shit like that happens sometimes...

Obama will get it straight, eventually...

One learns by doing...

_But that is not the primary focus here.._.

*The primary focus here is the overwhelming opposition to any such intervention, on the part of the American People...*

Regardless of *WHO* is the President du Jour...

Obama, and the United States military, are the servants of The People...

They should now conduct themselves as such in this matter...


----------



## dilloduck

rhodescholar said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about killing civilians, does it really matter what they used? Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza, sri lanka slaughtered 5,000 civilians,russia killed tens of thousands in chechnya, and china has mass murdered tens of thousands in tibet, So the question is where was the out cry for those murders? What makes Syria different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those conflicts was a war of choice, whereas israel was fighting to stop thousands of rockets continuing to strike it from gaza.
> 
> Chechnya did not threaten the existence of russia, tibet did not threaten the existence of china, the tamil tigers did not threaten the existence of sri lanka...
> 
> Syria is different because the world CAN do something to stop the mass slaughter of women and children.  Had the West threatened russia or china, it could have started a global conflict, an issue not applicable to syria.
Click to expand...


How ?  By telling Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to back off ? There's no mass slaughter going on in Syria but the war of choice that's being waged by Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar is creating a humanitarian crisis. American people want no part of it.


----------



## deltex1

Kondor3 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._So that means no red lines no mo no mo?_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God only knows how you extrapolated that outcome from the point-of-departure, but...
> 
> No... that does not mean 'no more red lines', or 'lines in the sand'...
> 
> We merely need to do a better job of determining when it is appropriate to draw such a line...
> 
> And when it is not...
> 
> This way, we saber-rattling over things that few people support or give two shits about...
> 
> Obumble did a bad job of determining when to draw such a line in the sand...
> 
> He was 180-degrees-out from his Constitutency... Left, Right and Center...
> 
> Shit like that happens sometimes...
> 
> Obama will get it straight, eventually...
> 
> One learns by doing...
> 
> _But that is not the primary focus here.._.
> 
> *The primary focus here is the overwhelming opposition to any such intervention, on the part of the American People...*
> 
> Regardless of *WHO* is the President du Jour...
> 
> Obama, and the United States military, are the servants of The People...
> 
> They should now conduct themselves as such in this matter...
Click to expand...


I hear what you are saying...however these are the same American people who have given the reins of power to a rank amateur...so maybe that makes them as stupid as he...I remain an advocate of removing Assad...and dealing with the aftermath with awesome destruction if warrented.


----------



## Trajan

"passing the global test..." who remembers that? 


_    No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

    But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you&#8217;re doing what you&#8217;re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
_
washingtonpost.com - Presidential Debate Between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry



that was then, this is now;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDN4L00Ls9E#t=26]Secretary John Kerry Syria FULL Statement, Unveils Evidence of Chemical Attack by Assad's Government - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JWBooth

dilloduck said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about killing civilians, does it really matter what they used? Israel used phosphorous bombs in Gaza, sri lanka slaughtered 5,000 civilians,russia killed tens of thousands in chechnya, and china has mass murdered tens of thousands in tibet, So the question is where was the out cry for those murders? What makes Syria different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those conflicts was a war of choice, whereas israel was fighting to stop thousands of rockets continuing to strike it from gaza.
> 
> Chechnya did not threaten the existence of russia, tibet did not threaten the existence of china, the tamil tigers did not threaten the existence of sri lanka...
> 
> Syria is different because the world CAN do something to stop the mass slaughter of women and children.  Had the West threatened russia or china, it could have started a global conflict, an issue not applicable to syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How ?  By telling Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to back off ? There's no mass slaughter going on in Syria but the war of choice that's being waged by Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar is creating a humanitarian crisis. American people want no part of it.
Click to expand...

 Rightly so.


----------



## dilloduck

JWBooth said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those conflicts was a war of choice, whereas israel was fighting to stop thousands of rockets continuing to strike it from gaza.
> 
> Chechnya did not threaten the existence of russia, tibet did not threaten the existence of china, the tamil tigers did not threaten the existence of sri lanka...
> 
> Syria is different because the world CAN do something to stop the mass slaughter of women and children.  Had the West threatened russia or china, it could have started a global conflict, an issue not applicable to syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How ?  By telling Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to back off ? There's no mass slaughter going on in Syria but the war of choice that's being waged by Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar is creating a humanitarian crisis. American people want no part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rightly so.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't that be enough ?


----------



## Kondor3

*A dramatization of popular reaction against another war, with citizens confronting a sitting US President, one night at the Lincoln Memorial...
*

*The operative piece (in my mind) between 2:19 and 4:01...

The Beast...*


----------



## JWBooth

dilloduck said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ?  By telling Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar to back off ? There's no mass slaughter going on in Syria but the war of choice that's being waged by Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar is creating a humanitarian crisis. American people want no part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Rightly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be enough ?
Click to expand...


You'd think so, perhaps this is anecdotal evidence for the devolution theory in the evolution of mankind


----------



## Kondor3

deltex1 said:


> "...I hear what you are saying...however these are the same American people who have given the reins of power to a rank amateur...so maybe that makes them as stupid as he..."



Neither the stupidity of a sitting President nor the stupidity of the Electorate that put him there constitutes an adequate casus belli.



> "..._I remain an advocate of removing Assad...and dealing with the aftermath with awesome destruction if warrented._"



I, too, am in favor of removing Assad.

But only if he is going to be replaced by a truly democratic government backed by the Syrian People and empowering their citizenry to change that government at will in an orderly fashion.

That is NOT what we would be fostering, should we hit Syria at this juncture...

Consequently, better the devil you know...

When the American People support a strike on Syria then I will reconsider my position.


----------



## flacaltenn

Zona said:


> If McCain had one, we would be in ww4 by now.  This is why I don't understand republicans.  That idiot could have won.



Probably the ONLY THING we agree on.  But McCain isnt the only dangerously stupid politician in power.


----------



## Geaux4it

You know, in a sick kind of perverted way, I hope someone get's the fact we are out numbered in Cali

-Geaux


----------



## dilloduck

JWBooth said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be enough ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd think so, perhaps this is anecdotal evidence for the devolution theory in the evolution of mankind
Click to expand...


Or more simply ulterior motives that are being kept secret from Americans.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Doesn't it concern people that the U.S. and Israel are responsible for half of the foreign invasions in the last 30 years and considering there are 196 countries in the world? Since our Afghanistan invasion, 5 of them were unprovoked (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Libya). Syria will make 6.

List of invasions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2011 invasion of Libya by United States
2008 invasion of Gaza, by Israel
2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia
2008 invasion of Anjouan by the African Union
2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition
1998 invasion of Ethiopia by Eritrea
1994 invasion of Haiti by a multinational force (MNF) led by the United States
1991 invasion of Kuwait and southern Iraq by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
1989 invasion of Liberia launched from Côte d'Ivoire by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia
1989 invasion of Panama by the United States
1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China
1983 invasion of Grenada by the United States and allied Caribbean nations


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

deltex1 said:


> I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should not drop a dime on Assad.



The question is "War with Syria: yea or nay?" It doesn't say anything about proposals.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Zona said:


> If McCain had one, we would be in ww4 by now.  This is why I don't understand republicans.  That idiot could have won.



I was gonna say something just like that earlier. And I fiercely supported McCain too. 

It's hard to be a republican nowadays. GWB was lousy too.


----------



## Noomi

I say no, because America gets involve in too many bloody wars and we want no part of it. Mind your own business, get the fuck out and let them sort it out themselves.


----------



## Vandalshandle

What the hell is it that causes otherwise normal people to decide to go to war, just because he has become Commander in Chief?

Show me where US national security is threatened. Show me international support. Show me congressional support.

Obama has done it this time. A strike is almost certain, and it will result in landslide elections for republicans in 2014. 

Yes, I am a democrat, but I have had enough of this crap. Someone needs to reel Obama in. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about what the Syrians do to each other. They have been doing it to each other for a thousand years or more. Absolutely nothing that Obama does is going to change that one bit. I am beginning to believe that, as a nation, we are better off when Obama is on vacation playing golf.


----------



## skye

It's all happening  in a few days or hours now ....so it doesn't matter what you - nay sayers say 

Put up with it! 


Oh Lord you are  a stubborn   lot ! but it does not matter anymore


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

You can't force people to accept your will for them, unless you imprison them or in this case keep a permanent occupation. It's like a law of nature. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria will all revert to what they were or worse, and we will be responsible for what 1 million deaths in that process.


----------



## rhodescholar

dilloduck said:


> There's no mass slaughter going on in Syria but the war of choice that's being waged by Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar is creating a humanitarian crisis. American people want no part of it.



Wut?  There's no mass slaughters or massacres that have taken place in syria?  The whole uprising there, beginning with peaceful marches of syrians chanting, never took place?  What fucking planet are you living on?


----------



## rhodescholar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Doesn't it concern people that the U.S. and Israel are responsible for half of the foreign invasions in the last 30 years and considering there are 196 countries in the world? Since our Afghanistan invasion, 5 of them were unprovoked (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Libya). Syria will make 6.
> 
> List of invasions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 2011 invasion of Libya by United States
> 2008 invasion of Gaza, by Israel
> 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia
> 2008 invasion of Anjouan by the African Union
> 2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
> 2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
> 2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
> 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition
> 1998 invasion of Ethiopia by Eritrea
> 1994 invasion of Haiti by a multinational force (MNF) led by the United States
> 1991 invasion of Kuwait and southern Iraq by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
> 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
> 1989 invasion of Liberia launched from Côte d'Ivoire by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia
> 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States
> 1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China
> 1983 invasion of Grenada by the United States and allied Caribbean nations



"Unprovoked"?  Is this the national asshole of america forum?  Afghanistan was not used by al qaeda to attack the US?  Hezbollah did not start a war with israel in 2006?  Hamas was not firing rockets into civilian areas of israel?  

Second, there have been a shitload of other wars that you failed to mention, like the Falklands, dozens in Africa, etc.

You're as full of shit a moron as I've seen in this forum, and I've seen many here.  Quite simply, you are incredibly fucking STUPID.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

rhodescholar said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no mass slaughter going on in Syria but the war of choice that's being waged by Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar is creating a humanitarian crisis. American people want no part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wut?  There's no mass slaughters or massacres that have taken place in syria?  The whole uprising there, beginning with peaceful marches of syrians chanting, never took place?  What fucking planet are you living on?
Click to expand...


Maybe, he meant it is a fight for survival, which would technically make it simply a disaster.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

rhodescholar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it concern people that the U.S. and Israel are responsible for half of the foreign invasions in the last 30 years and considering there are 196 countries in the world? Since our Afghanistan invasion, 5 of them were unprovoked (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Libya). Syria will make 6.
> 
> List of invasions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 2011 invasion of Libya by United States
> 2008 invasion of Gaza, by Israel
> 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia
> 2008 invasion of Anjouan by the African Union
> 2006 invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia
> 2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel
> 2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
> 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition
> 1998 invasion of Ethiopia by Eritrea
> 1994 invasion of Haiti by a multinational force (MNF) led by the United States
> 1991 invasion of Kuwait and southern Iraq by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
> 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
> 1989 invasion of Liberia launched from Côte d'Ivoire by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia
> 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States
> 1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China
> 1983 invasion of Grenada by the United States and allied Caribbean nations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Unprovoked"?  Is this the national asshole of america forum?  Afghanistan was not used by al qaeda to attack the US?  Hezbollah did not start a war with israel in 2006?  Hamas was not firing rockets into civilian areas of israel?
> 
> Second, there have been a shitload of other wars that you failed to mention, like the Falklands, dozens in Africa, etc.
> 
> You're as full of shit a moron as I've seen in this forum, and I've seen many here.  Quite simply, you are incredibly fucking STUPID.
Click to expand...


The Falklands war was 31 years ago. I said in the last 30 years. I used the list from Wikipedia. If you have some from Africa not listed, then state them, and we can see if they qualify.

Firing a few rockets by Hezbollah is less than nothing compared to the total blockade of the Palestinian land and the illegal settlements.

When Al Qaeda attacked us on 911, they had done nothing that would have made it unreasonable for them to be in Afghanistan. Clinton didn't do anything about it and could have. The Taliban had no control over that situation.

Looks like you're the one who has the shortcomings.


----------



## rhodescholar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The Falklands war was 31 years ago. I said in the last 30 years.



Close enough.



> I used the list from Wikipedia. If you have some from Africa not listed, then state them, and we can see if they qualify.



Ethiopean troops entered somalia, for one.



> Firing a few rockets by Hezbollah is less than nothing



"Firing a few rockets"?  That is nothing?  To a stupid, fucking retarded trolling asshole like you perhaps - but they did more than that jackass, they sent commandos across the border - a war crime - and kidnapped soldiers.  Learn some facts, moron.



> compared to the total blockade of the Palestinian land and the illegal settlements.



First of all the land is legally DISPUTED, second, moron, the West Bank is not blockaded, and neither is Gaza.  The nanosecond israel pulled out of gaza, they were hit with rocket fire.  Yes, you really are that fucking stupid.  Just stop posting already.



> When Al Qaeda attacked us on 911, they had done nothing that would have made it unreasonable for them to be in Afghanistan. Clinton didn't do anything about it and could have. The Taliban had no control over that situation.



Asshole, Bush demanded that the taliban hand over al qaeda, and they refused.  Not only are you fucking stupid, you're lazy and possibly mentally ill.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

rhodescholar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Falklands war was 31 years ago. I said in the last 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Close enough.
Click to expand...


Only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, something like that? LOL



rhodescholar said:


> I used the list from Wikipedia. If you have some from Africa not listed, then state them, and we can see if they qualify.
> 
> Ethiopean troops entered somalia, for one.


That IS on the list.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

skye said:


> It's all happening  in a few days or hours now ....so it doesn't matter what you - nay sayers say
> 
> Put up with it!
> 
> 
> Oh Lord you are  a stubborn   lot ! but it does not matter anymore



You seem to be pretty happy about a new war. Why? Is there some sort of gain we can get from attacking that only you know about? Is there some secret path to victory that will solve the ME's problems we are missing here?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

rhodescholar said:


> "Firing a few rockets"?  That is nothing?  To a stupid, fucking retarded trolling asshole like you perhaps - but they did more than that jackass, they sent commandos across the border - a war crime - and kidnapped soldiers.  Learn some facts, moron.



They had one prisoner, and that's not a good enough reason to invade Lebanon. The Israelis had killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinians, mostly youths. Do you expect there to be NO reaction whatsoever to that and the virtual imprisonment and stealing of the land? 





rhodescholar said:


> First of all the land is legally DISPUTED, second, moron, the West Bank is not blockaded, and neither is Gaza.  The nanosecond israel pulled out of gaza, they were hit with rocket fire.  Yes, you really are that fucking stupid.  Just stop posting already.



You're confusing the blockade with the sporadic and sometimes lengthy Israeli occupations.

No one denies what the Palestinians have is their land. The only land that is in dispute are the 1967 borders, which SHOULD be restored.

I can see you are one of those fanatic Israeli apologists, sympathizers or worse. 

I don't think it would be proper for me to go on any further with this discussion, since I have used up my time on this to fit it into a debate about invasions, unless I get support for it.

Go ahead. Have the last word on this.


----------



## JWBooth

Meh, up to 6 fucking morons in favor of believing the bullshit the government feeds them and expanding the body count of the state. Still only six shows there to be far more rational folks here (on this subject anyway) than I would have guessed when the poll was launched.


----------



## Geaux4it

Why are we telegraphing every single move leading up to the equivalent of attacking with squirt guns?, T-Hawks, JSOW et al are bad ass weapons but all the better get ready talk is laughable 

The media is the new Jane Fonda.. lol

Haven't they ever heard the term 'Loose lips sink ships'?

OPSEC

-Geaux


----------



## Edgetho

JWBooth said:


> Meh, up to 6 fucking morons in favor of believing the bullshit the government feeds them and expanding the body count of the state. Still only six shows there to be far more rational folks here (on this subject anyway) than I would have guessed when the poll was launched.



Watch it, sailor!

I voted 'yea' because it is inevitable anyway and will make the Stuttering Clusterfukk look like the lying, hypocritical scumbag he is.

Weak, lying, back-stabbing, dishonest, corrupt, America-Hating, egotistical, narcissistic, self-centered.....

That about sums up the dimocrap party and its adherents.

I voted yes in order to shine the light of day on it

What kind of IDIOT votes for a scumbag like hussein obama?

Unreal.

As bad as Romney was, he was ten times the Man this limp-wristed, lying, back-stabbing, America-Hating (not kidding) egotist will ever be.  Even if we were to inject him with pure testosterone every day for a year....

The pussification of America is complete

Photos of Barack Obama Looking Gay and Being A Sissy | Hillbuzz | Conservative Political Analysis, Action & Humor | Kevin DuJan Editor


----------



## paulitician

And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians. 

Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?


----------



## Edgetho

paulitician said:


> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?



obama is not my leader.  No way.  No how.

He may be someone's leader, but he isn't mine.

He's a scumbag.  A monumental farce of a man.  A made-up, homogenized, pasteurized, made-for-TV phony that has been given a complete makeover by the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM.  

He has been given the "Star Treatment".  He is the MTV Preezy of the United Steezy.  He is the president of hipsters, punks, black thugs, Union thieves, gubmint employee leeches and communists.

He is NOT my leader.  And do not ever say he is.

He is a scumbag and is the leader of scumbags.

P.S.  No American President is this Country's "Leader"

We don't have 'leaders'.  

the current POS-TUS is the "Head of Government".  End.

Even the best of them, Ronald Reagan was no more than that.  The Head of Government.

He is the Military's Leader, their CinC.  But he is NOT the Leader of this Country.

This Country doesn't work that way.

I get tired of having to explain that to people.  We don't have "Leaders".  We have Representatives.

They work for us, not _vice versa_.  To say that we have "Leaders" implies that we work for them.

Not yet, anyway.


----------



## Katzndogz

The rebels, that obama wants to help, hate us as much, or more, than the government forces those rebels are fighting.  These rebels are masters at propaganda, they used propaganda to blame Assad's forces for a chemical attack that they did themselves.   After an American strike, these rebel propagandists will be dragging out the bodies of mangled women and children saying "See what the Americans did".  

It has never made the attention of anyone that whenever there is a battle it's always women, children and the old that shows up in the morgues?   Wouldn't that raise some kind of suspicion?


----------



## Vox

JWBooth said:


> Meh, up to 6 fucking morons in favor of believing the bullshit the government feeds them and expanding the body count of the state. Still only six shows there to be far more rational folks here (on this subject anyway) than I would have guessed when the poll was launched.



there are at least 3 payed bots in the number


----------



## Freewill

Vox said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, up to 6 fucking morons in favor of believing the bullshit the government feeds them and expanding the body count of the state. Still only six shows there to be far more rational folks here (on this subject anyway) than I would have guessed when the poll was launched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are at least 3 payed bots in the number
Click to expand...


At least 3 for sure.  IF Obama is doing anything other then saber rattling I wonder what it is he is going to bomb.  Assad, last I looked the assignation of a foreign leader was illegal, not that legality matters to the Constitutional lawyer.  If he bombs the chemical weapons stores the experts are saying that it is impossible to destroy all the gas.  In other words prepare for civilian deaths.

But, what is Obama to do?  He drew a line in the sand and considering it isn't him  in risk he will not be able to not take action his ego won't let him.

So we are stuck with the only people supporting the Obama doctrine are the bots.  Even those on the left know this is not a good policy.


----------



## Freewill

paulitician said:


> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?



We did not slaughter women and children in the Afghan or Iraq war.  Yes some were killed but not slaughtered you should check your words.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

If Obama is going to do it, he'll ramp up his war machine today or tomorrow, as it's usually done on the weekend. People are much less likely to take life seriously on the weekend and develop the outrage that they ought to.

2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We started our invasion of Libya on March 19, 2011, a Saturday.

March 2011 Calendar ? United States


----------



## deltex1

how long does it take for a lab to verify what type of CW was used?


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> If Obama is going to do it, he'll ramp up his war machine today or tomorrow, as it's usually done on the weekend. People are much less likely to take life seriously on the weekend and develop the outrage that they ought to.
> 
> 2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We started our invasion of Libya on March 19, 2011, a Saturday.
> 
> March 2011 Calendar ? United States


And HE is taking a huge risk as the U.N. just left Syria, and their results aren't known yet.

*U.N. inspectors leave Syria as U.S. pushes forward with plans for military action*


----------



## Lipush

Isn't there something in the middle, between Yay and Nay?


----------



## The T

deltex1 said:


> how long does it take for a lab to verify what type of CW was used?


From what I am hearing we won't know for a couple weeks...


----------



## deltex1

Lipush said:


> Isn't there something in the middle, between Yay and Nay?



Maybay.


----------



## Ropey

Nay


----------



## deltex1

The T said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how long does it take for a lab to verify what type of CW was used?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I am hearing we won't know for a couple weeks...
Click to expand...


From what I heard the UN briefer say...they will merge the technical analysis with the verbal testimony of the victims and put all in one repart.  To me that gives them excuse for delay.


----------



## The T

Freewill said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, up to 6 fucking morons in favor of believing the bullshit the government feeds them and expanding the body count of the state. Still only six shows there to be far more rational folks here (on this subject anyway) than I would have guessed when the poll was launched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are at least 3 payed bots in the number
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least 3 for sure. IF Obama is doing anything other then saber rattling I wonder what it is he is going to bomb. Assad, last I looked the assignation of a foreign leader was illegal, not that legality matters to the Constitutional lawyer. If he bombs the chemical weapons stores the experts are saying that it is impossible to destroy all the gas. In other words prepare for civilian deaths.
> 
> But, what is Obama to do? He drew a line in the sand and considering it isn't him in risk he will not be able to not take action his ego won't let him.
> 
> So we are stuck with the only people supporting the Obama doctrine are the bots. Even those on the left know this is not a good policy.
Click to expand...

 
And how many times was the 'RED LINE' crossed? Why not let them cross it more? Fact is? Obama has to save face since his inaction the first time it was crossed. He's painted himself into a corner, and WE have to suffer because of his incompetence. Our creds are shot in the world due to him.


----------



## The T

deltex1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how long does it take for a lab to verify what type of CW was used?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I am hearing we won't know for a couple weeks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I heard the UN briefer say...they will merge the technical analysis with the verbal testimony of the victims and put all in one repart. To me that gives them excuse for delay.
Click to expand...

Logically, yes. But the war drums are beating louder, and to listen to the media? They seem to be in a rush and disappointed that Obama hasn't decided...The vultures on  the trees waiting eagerly.


----------



## Camp

Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat.  Obama turns defeat into victory.


----------



## The T

Camp said:


> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat. Obama turns defeat into victory.


 Still on Bush, eh? Care to support your statement?


----------



## Vox

Camp said:


> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat.  Obama turns defeat into victory.



bwahahaha

libtard "logic" in full exposure.

9/11 was a victory? for WHOM?

and this failure in the WH we have now - what kind of victory has he EVER got?

he is a total failure


----------



## Vox

Freewill said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, up to 6 fucking morons in favor of believing the bullshit the government feeds them and expanding the body count of the state. Still only six shows there to be far more rational folks here (on this subject anyway) than I would have guessed when the poll was launched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are at least 3 payed bots in the number
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least 3 for sure.  IF Obama is doing anything other then saber rattling I wonder what it is he is going to bomb.  Assad, last I looked the assignation of a foreign leader was illegal, not that legality matters to the Constitutional lawyer.  If he bombs the chemical weapons stores the experts are saying that it is impossible to destroy all the gas.  In other words prepare for civilian deaths.
> 
> *But, what is Obama to do?*  He drew a line in the sand and considering it isn't him  in risk he will not be able to not take action his ego won't let him.
> 
> So we are stuck with the only people supporting the Obama doctrine are the bots.  Even those on the left know this is not a good policy.
Click to expand...


he sure put himself in a stupid position and not the first time.

but if he does not want to get into this war ( which I think is quite the opposite) he can procrastinate and TALK, TALK, TALK as he always does - that is ALL what he knows how to do - he can shine is his speeches about how are we all going to punish the evil - through the UN  and EU and so on.

at least for ONCE his blubber would serve the country and it's people.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

War in Afghanistan (2001?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We started our war in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, a Sunday.

March 2011 Calendar ? United States

I can still remember the start of the Iraq war well, and Americans were still hungry for more revenge for 911, no matter who it was. It started on March 19, 2003, a Wednesday, so no one would miss out. 

March 2003 Shock and Awe - Seven Years in Iraq: An Iraq War Timeline - TIME

March 2003 Calendar ? United States


----------



## The T

I am looking at an empty podium live...

Fox News Live Video - Fox News


----------



## Vox

QuickHitCurepon said:


> War in Afghanistan (2001?present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We started our war in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, a Sunday.
> 
> March 2011 Calendar ? United States
> *
> I can still remember the start of the Iraq war well, and Americans were still hungry for more revenge for 911, no matter who it was. It started on March 19, 2003, a Wednesday, so no one would miss out. *
> 
> March 2003 Shock and Awe - Seven Years in Iraq: An Iraq War Timeline - TIME
> 
> March 2003 Calendar ? United States



It was justified at the time. Bush had the UN blessing and the Congress blessing. and we did not have 12years of war behind us and we still did not know that some people can't accept democratic values and should not be forced to.

TODAY we have all that knowledge, plus the negative experience of TWICE supporting the supposedly "good guys" against dictator  and what they turned out to be.

Stepping into the same pile of shit the THIRD TIME is either a proof of total idiocy or a shrewd deflection policy.
Since I do not consider obama to be a complete imbecile, and the situation in this country for this administration is not favorable, I am sure, it is a second reason.

the rabid aggressive brainwashing in favor of the war all across the media is a proof that it is a policy for distraction.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The T said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is going to do it, he'll ramp up his war machine today or tomorrow, as it's usually done on the weekend. People are much less likely to take life seriously on the weekend and develop the outrage that they ought to.
> 
> 2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We started our invasion of Libya on March 19, 2011, a Saturday.
> 
> March 2011 Calendar ? United States
> 
> 
> 
> And HE is taking a huge risk as the U.N. just left Syria, and their results aren't known yet.
> 
> *U.N. inspectors leave Syria as U.S. pushes forward with plans for military action*
Click to expand...


Yea, that's true, but let's say the UN submits their findings that Assad didn't use CW or something of that nature. Do you think they are going to then say well what Kerry said was wrong or premature? I mean come on. They already side-stepped the UN with Kerry's speech.


----------



## percysunshine

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is going to do it, he'll ramp up his war machine today or tomorrow, as it's usually done on the weekend. People are much less likely to take life seriously on the weekend and develop the outrage that they ought to.
> 
> 2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We started our invasion of Libya on March 19, 2011, a Saturday.
> 
> March 2011 Calendar ? United States
> 
> 
> 
> And HE is taking a huge risk as the U.N. just left Syria, and their results aren't known yet.
> 
> *U.N. inspectors leave Syria as U.S. pushes forward with plans for military action*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, that's true, but let's say the UN submits their findings that Assad didn't use CW or something of that nature. Do you think they are going to then say well what Kerry said was wrong or premature? I mean come on. They already side-stepped the UN with Kerry's speech.
Click to expand...


They pretty much sidestepped everyone...except the US military. And the military says they don't have the money to do it the right way. Interesting.


----------



## The T

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama is going to do it, he'll ramp up his war machine today or tomorrow, as it's usually done on the weekend. People are much less likely to take life seriously on the weekend and develop the outrage that they ought to.
> 
> 2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We started our invasion of Libya on March 19, 2011, a Saturday.
> 
> March 2011 Calendar ? United States
> 
> 
> 
> And HE is taking a huge risk as the U.N. just left Syria, and their results aren't known yet.
> 
> *U.N. inspectors leave Syria as U.S. pushes forward with plans for military action*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, that's true, but let's say the UN submits their findings that Assad didn't use CW or something of that nature. Do you think they are going to then say well what Kerry said was wrong or premature? I mean come on. They already side-stepped the UN with Kerry's speech.
Click to expand...

 
Of course not sine the UN and the left can't abide by the United States to start with. BOTH loathe this Republic.


----------



## Camp

The T said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat. Obama turns defeat into victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Still on Bush, eh? Care to support your statement?
Click to expand...


Bush had a huge victory in Afganistan. Defeated the Taliban and chased al Qaeda out. Minimum casualties for what was accomplished. That is when he should have declared a victory and got the hell out. Same with Irag. Brilliant victory. Defeated the forces of Saddam in record time, and again, with minimum casaulties for what was acccomplished. Once no WMD's were found and Saddam was gone, he should have declared victory and left. It was staying there for nation building that turned his victory there into defeat.
Obama will turn his red line defeat if he does not strike Syria into a victory. His PR offense will be that even though he wanted to attack, he listened and stayed cool. He can come out looking like he put what was best for the country first. He can look like a leader that will respect the advice and opinions of others and that he is not an egomaniac or cowboy. If he decides to attack in the next few days, you can be sure they have a PR plan for that as well.


----------



## The T

Camp said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat. Obama turns defeat into victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Still on Bush, eh? Care to support your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush had a huge victory in Afganistan. Defeated the Taliban and chased al Qaeda out. Minimum casualties for what was accomplished. That is when he should have declared a victory and got the hell out. Same with Irag. Brilliant victory. Defeated the forces of Saddam in record time, and again, with minimum casaulties for what was acccomplished. Once no WMD's were found and Saddam was gone, he should have declared victory and left. It was staying there for nation building that turned his victory there into defeat.
> Obama will turn his red line defeat if he does not strike Syria into a victory. His PR offense will be that even though he wanted to attack, he listened and stayed cool. He can come out looking like he put what was best for the country first. He can look like a leader that will respect the advice and opinions of others and that he is not an egomaniac or cowboy. If he decides to attack in the next few days, you can be sure they have a PR plan for that as well.
Click to expand...

 
Tell us WHY al-quaida is NOW in Iraq wreaking havoc after we left NO personnel there? The same is going to be true with ASTAN...as there won't be any personnel left there.

Nature abhors a vacuum...leftists always miss that point. They always leave messes which have to be cleaned up later on, and at larger cost to blood and treasure.

TRY again.


----------



## RandallFlagg

The T said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat. Obama turns defeat into victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Still on Bush, eh? Care to support your statement?
Click to expand...


Everything in this clown's tenure has been a comparison to Bush. Everything.  Talk about whispering with ghosts......


The liberals are pathetic.


----------



## The T

RandallFlagg said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat. Obama turns defeat into victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Still on Bush, eh? Care to support your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything in this clown's tenure has been a comparison to Bush. Everything. Talk about whispering with ghosts......
> 
> 
> The liberals are pathetic.
Click to expand...

And Bush had problems no doubt...but Obama has doubled and tripled whatever Bush did.

Obama is a clown, and an unqualified one that should have never been elected having done nothing with his life except be a professional shit-disturber.


----------



## Vox

Camp said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush took victory and turned it into defeat. Obama turns defeat into victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Still on Bush, eh? Care to support your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush had a huge victory in Afganistan. Defeated the Taliban and chased al Qaeda out. Minimum casualties for what was accomplished. That is when he should have declared a victory and got the hell out. Same with Irag. Brilliant victory. Defeated the forces of Saddam in record time, and again, with minimum casaulties for what was acccomplished. Once no WMD's were found and Saddam was gone, he should have declared victory and left. It was staying there for nation building that turned his victory there into defeat.
> Obama will turn his red line defeat if he does not strike Syria into a victory. His PR offense will be that even though he wanted to attack, he listened and stayed cool. He can come out looking like he put what was best for the country first. He can look like a leader that will respect the advice and opinions of others and that he is not an egomaniac or cowboy. If he decides to attack in the next few days, you can be sure they have a PR plan for that as well.
Click to expand...




oh, so obama's victories are all in the future only? the same as were in Libya and Egypt, right?


----------



## Circe

Wow, Obama is saying he'll wait and get a congressional debate and vote.

The polls show he simply has no support at all: not here in the USA, not in Europe.

Presumably that is the end of it?


----------



## hazlnut

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.



The notion of us engaging in a full-scale "War" with Syria is preposterous.

Would Mike Tyson engage in a 12-round fight with a 6th grade bully?

Although they have a substantial air defense system -- for a country of their size -- they are likely to be hit from all sides, Russia, Turkey, U.S. + ?

It will be interesting to see how our drones perform against the mostly Russian made SA missiles.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Circe said:


> Wow, Obama is saying he'll wait and get a congressional debate and vote.
> 
> The polls show he simply has no support at all: not here in the USA, not in Europe.
> 
> Presumably that is the end of it?




Yeah, 15 minutes to make a one minute statement. God this guy loves to hear his gums flap.


----------



## The T

Circe said:


> Wow, Obama is saying he'll wait and get a congressional debate and vote.
> 
> The polls show he simply has no support at all: not here in the USA, not in Europe.
> 
> Presumably that is the end of it?


He also stated he is going to not WAIT for the UN as they are 'paralyzed'...


----------



## RandallFlagg

The T said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Obama is saying he'll wait and get a congressional debate and vote.
> 
> The polls show he simply has no support at all: not here in the USA, not in Europe.
> 
> Presumably that is the end of it?
> 
> 
> 
> He also stated he is going to not WAIT for the UN as they are 'paralyzed'...
Click to expand...



I think that this "primarily" came about as a result of the Parliment in England. When our staunchest ally in the world tells us to "go it alone", Barry knows there is no support for this. This is his "out" - a way to bow out of this mess gracefully. "Well, the Congress voted this down so I will respect their wishes".

He comes out smelling like a rose after a week of saber rattling.


----------



## Circe

RandallFlagg said:


> I think that this "primarily" came about as a result of the Parliment in England. When our staunchest ally in the world tells us to "go it alone", Barry knows there is no support for this. This is his "out" - a way to bow out of this mess gracefully. "Well, the Congress voted this down so I will respect their wishes".
> 
> He comes out smelling like a rose after a week of saber rattling.




Yes, I agree about the British situation. But it's also about our truly negative polls.

I don't think he smells like a rose at all!!

I think he looks like a darn fool.

The Fox panel is sitting around with their mouths open, completely astounded.


----------



## Vox

Circe said:


> Wow, Obama is saying he'll wait and get a congressional debate and vote.
> 
> The polls show he simply has no support at all: not here in the USA, not in Europe.
> 
> Presumably that is the end of it?



looks like he is backpedaling the issue.

GOOD. I surely hope so.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

paulitician said:


> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?



On my last forum, Dale in Sales went into incredible detail of just how many died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the ridicule he received for it was unreal. I don't know why not a single person made a single attempt to support his approach. It was such a fiasco, that it has made me feel very reluctant to go down that road at all. It's just not worth it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to realize this themselves or even make any comments about it, what can you do?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYmoWO-ts4]Dale in Sales calls Howard about the War in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

I fully support what you are saying here, but I'm not going to stick my neck out on it unless others do.


----------



## Camp

He has turned it around, domestic politics wise. He just laid the burden on congress. If they don't give him the OK, it will be on congress the next time pictures and video's of dead and suffering kids shows up on our TV screens.


----------



## deltex1

Should we vote again....now that we have time......lmao...


----------



## Vox

QuickHitCurepon said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my last forum, Dale in Sales went into incredible detail of just how many died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the ridicule he received for it was unreal. I don't know why not a single person made a single attempt to support his approach. It was such a fiasco, that it has made me feel very reluctant to go down that road at all. It's just not worth it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to realize this themselves or even make any comments about it, what can you do?
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support what you are saying here, but I'm not going to stick my neck out on it unless others do.
Click to expand...


the reason is that message boards are generally speaking the venting outlets and the person who unveils their meek side is prone for ridicule and unfair attacks.

It is mean but it is what it is.
Sorry for that guy and his experience.


----------



## Vox

Camp said:


> He has turned it around, domestic politics wise. He just laid the burden on congress. If they don't give him the OK, it will be on congress the next time pictures and video's of dead and suffering kids shows up on our TV screens.



he did not.

everybody knows he simply caved.

and since nobody wants a war, everybody will give him a pass on this


----------



## RandallFlagg

Circe said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this "primarily" came about as a result of the Parliment in England. When our staunchest ally in the world tells us to "go it alone", Barry knows there is no support for this. This is his "out" - a way to bow out of this mess gracefully. "Well, the Congress voted this down so I will respect their wishes".
> 
> He comes out smelling like a rose after a week of saber rattling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree about the British situation. But it's also about our truly negative polls.
> 
> I don't think he smells like a rose at all!!
> 
> I think he looks like a darn fool.
> 
> The Fox panel is sitting around with their mouths open, completely astounded.
Click to expand...



Why wouldn't they be astonished!? This "president" has just made himself (and by proxy THIS country) look like fools. My God, what this man is doing to this country. Look, if what Syria did, warrants retribution, and Barry is going to "punish" them for their actions, call Congress back TODAY, debate the issue and vote it up or down.

My God! it's not difficult. Personally, I am against this crap, but Barry painted himself (and again, by proxy the US) into a corner with his little school yard tough guy routine. Syria (like the rest of the Middle East) is run by MEN, not little boys. You make a threat, you'd damn we'll better be ready to back it up.

What's Barry doing now? This minute? Playing Golf with Joe Biden at Fort Belvoir.

THAT, ladies  and gentlemen, is your Chief Executive.


----------



## Camp

Vox said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has turned it around, domestic politics wise. He just laid the burden on congress. If they don't give him the OK, it will be on congress the next time pictures and video's of dead and suffering kids shows up on our TV screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he did not.
> 
> everybody knows he simply caved.
> 
> and since nobody wants a war, everybody will give him a pass on this
Click to expand...


Congratulations on your appointment to spokesperson for "everybody".


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Vox said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my last forum, Dale in Sales went into incredible detail of just how many died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the ridicule he received for it was unreal. I don't know why not a single person made a single attempt to support his approach. It was such a fiasco, that it has made me feel very reluctant to go down that road at all. It's just not worth it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to realize this themselves or even make any comments about it, what can you do?
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support what you are saying here, but I'm not going to stick my neck out on it unless others do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the reason is that message boards are generally speaking the venting outlets and the person who unveils their meek side is prone for ridicule and unfair attacks.
> 
> It is mean but it is what it is.
> Sorry for that guy and his experience.
Click to expand...


Yea, I felt so bad about it all, but I see what you mean. 



What we need is a new generation of internet forums.


----------



## Kondor3

Vox said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has turned it around, domestic politics wise. He just laid the burden on congress. If they don't give him the OK, it will be on congress the next time pictures and video's of dead and suffering kids shows up on our TV screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he did not.
> 
> everybody knows he simply caved.
> 
> and since nobody wants a war, everybody will give him a pass on this
Click to expand...




Camp said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has turned it around, domestic politics wise. He just laid the burden on congress. If they don't give him the OK, it will be on congress the next time pictures and video's of dead and suffering kids shows up on our TV screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he did not.
> 
> everybody knows he simply caved.
> 
> and since nobody wants a war, everybody will give him a pass on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations on your appointment to spokesperson for "everybody".
Click to expand...


Strictly as a matter of personal opinion...

No... I think Vox has probably got this one right... that's what this smells and feels like... good enough, as a placeholder, until we learn more...


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Kondor3 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has turned it around, domestic politics wise. He just laid the burden on congress. If they don't give him the OK, it will be on congress the next time pictures and video's of dead and suffering kids shows up on our TV screens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he did not.
> 
> everybody knows he simply caved.
> 
> and since nobody wants a war, everybody will give him a pass on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> he did not.
> 
> everybody knows he simply caved.
> 
> and since nobody wants a war, everybody will give him a pass on this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations on your appointment to spokesperson for "everybody".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strictly as a matter of personal opinion...
> 
> No... I think Vox has probably got this one right... that's what this smells and feels like... good enough, as a placeholder, until we learn more...
Click to expand...


Too bad the Congress has evolved into a body that is solely interested in what makes them powerful and relevant and not what the people want. Does anyone believe they will vote to prohibit military action in Syria? I hope I'm wrong, but they will vote for action, and that will make it far more easier for Obama to go straight in and inflict as much damage as possible and necessary for the rebels to become strong. Then Obama will do whatever militarily necessary to allow rebel victory. 

The threat of a limited missile attack was bait-and-switch. Obama is now on the fast-track to toppling Assad.


----------



## Snouter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Does anyone believe they will vote to prohibit military action in Syria?



Nope.  Just about every politiican has declared allegiance to the zionist regime so they will vote yes.


----------



## Kondor3

Snouter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe they will vote to prohibit military action in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just about every politiican has declared allegiance to the zionist regime so they will vote yes.
Click to expand...

*Oh, horseshit, this has nothing to do with Zionism...*


----------



## The T

randallflagg said:


> circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> randallflagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think that this "primarily" came about as a result of the parliment in england. When our staunchest ally in the world tells us to "go it alone", barry knows there is no support for this. This is his "out" - a way to bow out of this mess gracefully. "well, the congress voted this down so i will respect their wishes".
> 
> He comes out smelling like a rose after a week of saber rattling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, i agree about the british situation. But it's also about our truly negative polls.
> 
> I don't think he smells like a rose at all!!
> 
> I think he looks like a darn fool.
> 
> The fox panel is sitting around with their mouths open, completely astounded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why wouldn't they be astonished!? This "president" has just made himself (and by proxy this country) look like fools. My god, what this man is doing to this country. Look, if what syria did, warrants retribution, and barry is going to "punish" them for their actions, call congress back today, debate the issue and vote it up or down.
> 
> My god! It's not difficult. Personally, i am against this crap, but barry painted himself (and again, by proxy the us) into a corner with his little school yard tough guy routine. Syria (like the rest of the middle east) is run by men, not little boys. You make a threat, you'd damn we'll better be ready to back it up.
> 
> What's barry doing now? This minute? Playing golf with joe biden at fort belvoir.
> 
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is your chief executive.
Click to expand...

 
this^^^


----------



## Freewill

Lipush said:


> Isn't there something in the middle, between Yay and Nay?



Obama's favorite: Present


----------



## georgephillip

paulitician said:


> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?


How do you feel about petrodollars?
Iran has recently threatened to exchange its oil for gold.
Both Saddam and Gaddafi briefly toyed with dumping the US dollar.
What exactly happens to the US economy if enough of the world decides to say "fuck you" to the Federal Reserve?

*Tyler Durden:*

Argument No. 2: There is no way the dollars value will ever collapse because it is the dominant petro-currency, and the entire world needs dollars to purchase oil..."

"The second argument held weight for a short time, only because the political trends in the Mideast had not yet caught up to the financial reality already underway. Today, this is quickly changing. The petrodollars status is dependent on a great number of factors remaining in perfect alignment, socially, politically and economically. 

"If a single element were to fall out of place, oil markets would explode with inflation in prices, influencing the rest of the world to abandon the greenback. Here are just a few of the primary catalysts and why they are an early warning of the inevitable death of the petrodollar."

Guest Post: Get Ready For The Death Of The Petrodollar | Zero Hedge

Possibly our leaders are getting ready to maim, murder, incarcerate, and displace millions of more innocent civilians in order to prop up the almighty (petro) dollar?


----------



## Kondor3

*Zionists and Petrodollars and and Bears, oh my...*






Not _everything_ about the Middle East is about Israel and oil...


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe they will vote to prohibit military action in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just about every politiican has declared allegiance to the zionist regime so they will vote yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Oh, horseshit, this has nothing to do with Zionism...*
Click to expand...

Pig puke...everything happening in the Middle East today stems from racist Zionists inflicting a Jewish state upon Palestine in 1948 IN SPITE of the fact there were twice as many non-Jews as Jews living between the River and the sea at that time.


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just about every politiican has declared allegiance to the zionist regime so they will vote yes.
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh, horseshit, this has nothing to do with Zionism...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pig puke...*everything happening in the Middle East today stems from racist Zionists* inflicting a Jewish state upon Palestine in 1948 IN SPITE of the fact there were twice as many non-Jews as Jews living between the River and the sea at that time.
Click to expand...

\







*Yer a funny guy, Georgie...*


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh, horseshit, this has nothing to do with Zionism...*
> 
> 
> 
> Pig puke...*everything happening in the Middle East today stems from racist Zionists* inflicting a Jewish state upon Palestine in 1948 IN SPITE of the fact there were twice as many non-Jews as Jews living between the River and the sea at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yer a funny guy, Georgie...*
Click to expand...

As funny as Ze'ev?

"*There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs*.  Not now, nor in the prospective future.  I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists.  I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting 'Palestine' from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority."

"The Iron Wall" by Ze'ev (Vladimir Jabotinsky

*What racist wouldn't chuckle at that?*


----------



## Kondor3

*This thread is about the prospect of war or war-like action against Syria...

This is not supposed to be a vehicle for your incessant pro-Palestinian propagandizing against Israel and the Jews...*


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> *This thread is about the prospect of war or war-like action against Syria...
> 
> This is not supposed to be a vehicle for your incessant pro-Palestinian propagandizing against Israel and the Jews...*


The "prospect of war or war-like action against Syria" today can't be separated from 650,000 Jews inflicting their nation upon twice as many Arabs in Palestine in 1948 or similar provocations like Operation Orchard in 2007.


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread is about the prospect of war or war-like action against Syria...
> 
> This is not supposed to be a vehicle for your incessant pro-Palestinian propagandizing against Israel and the Jews...*
> 
> 
> 
> The "prospect of war or war-like action against Syria" today can't be separated from 650,000 Jews inflicting their nation upon twice as many Arabs in Palestine in 1948 or similar provocations like Operation Orchard in 2007.
Click to expand...


*Seen.*


----------



## paulitician

QuickHitCurepon said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about all the innocent Civilians who will be killed in this coming attack on Syria? I haven't seen anyone address that yet on this thread. This attack is going to kill innocent Men, Women, and Children. Just like the Thousands we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. This isn't a TV Show or an Action Movie. Real Women & Children die in these attacks. We are very accurate with our weapons. The most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Civilians. Shooting missiles from ships hundreds of miles out at sea, will result in the needless slaughter of Civilians.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Americans don't like reality. So they try and ignore it. They pretend it's a TV Show or Movie. Personally, i cannot support murdering even one Syrian Civilian. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation. They've given me no cause to hate them or kill them. I would like to see this issue discussed more on this thread. Your Leaders are about to kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children in your name. How do you feel about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my last forum, Dale in Sales went into incredible detail of just how many died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the ridicule he received for it was unreal. I don't know why not a single person made a single attempt to support his approach. It was such a fiasco, that it has made me feel very reluctant to go down that road at all. It's just not worth it, and if people aren't intelligent enough to realize this themselves or even make any comments about it, what can you do?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYmoWO-ts4]Dale in Sales calls Howard about the War in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> I fully support what you are saying here, but I'm not going to stick my neck out on it unless others do.
Click to expand...


Americans especially, despise reality. Our weapons are the most accurate in the World. But they still kill many innocent Men, Women, and Children. Personally, i will not support killing even one Syrian Civilian. It's not a video game or movie. It's real. Real children are brutally slaughtered in these attacks. The 'It's ok, cause it's collateral damage' crowd should be ashamed of themselves. There is no justification for this War. Period, end of story.


----------



## paulitician

Looks like the American People are winning on this one so far. Their voice is being heard. And that's a pretty incredible refreshing change.


----------



## Kondor3

paulitician said:


> Looks like the American People are winning on this one so far.* Their voice is being heard*. And that's a pretty incredible refreshing change.


Indeed.

And it's about flippin' time...!


----------



## U2Edge

I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.


----------



## paulitician

U2Edge said:


> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.



I hear ya, but try to approach it from another angle. If another Nation began bombing the U.S., would you consider that a 'limited missile strike' or an act of War?


----------



## whitehall

There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether we will punish Syria or not. My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.


----------



## paulitician




----------



## paulitician

whitehall said:


> There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether we will punish Syria or not. My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.



Not our call to 'punish' anyone. There is no valid argument for our involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Period, end of story.


----------



## Kondor3

U2Edge said:


> _I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it_.



The firing of missiles, or bombing, directed against a foreign government, *is* an Act of War.

The survey question ( War: Yes or No? ) was correct, both literally and figuratively.

I do not mean this in an unkind way, but, I will repeat something that I said on this board in the past couple of days...

Every thinking person over the age of 10 who sees that question, knows what is meant...

War can be big or small, declared or undeclared, long or short, cheap or costly, bombing-only or full-scale invasion...

The survey question paints with a broad brush - on the macro level - and is sufficient to our purposes...

"No" means no.

"Yes" can mean missile strikes or bombing or full-scale invasion or whatever; TBD later.

I agree with you that it would be good to have more detailed insights into how folks would like to proceed, if the audience chooses military action, and there may very well be room for such a poll in the coming days, especially if Congress and/or the President end-up taking action that contravenes our own little survey mechanism, but, at present, it seems best to simply take the pulse of the audience as to whether we should take *ANY* action, rather than muddying the waters with details at this early stage in the game.

The mods can speak for themselves but, at first glance, that's MY guess as to why they chose to ask the audience to focus on the existing one... first things first, so-to-speak. I would craft an Action Survey with more options than the one you served-up but your idea is sound... it's merely a bit premature, methinks... nor not... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




For whatever that's worth...


----------



## Contumacious

whitehall said:


> There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether *we will punish Syria or not.* My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.



WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?


.


----------



## The Rabbi

paulitician said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether we will punish Syria or not. My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not our call to 'punish' anyone. There is no valid argument for our involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...


"Valid"="Whatever Ron Paul says is valid".

There are many valid reasons for acting here.


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread is about the prospect of war or war-like action against Syria...
> 
> This is not supposed to be a vehicle for your incessant pro-Palestinian propagandizing against Israel and the Jews...*
> 
> 
> 
> The "prospect of war or war-like action against Syria" today can't be separated from 650,000 Jews inflicting their nation upon twice as many Arabs in Palestine in 1948 or similar provocations like Operation Orchard in 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Seen.*
Click to expand...

*"seen
s&#275;n...
1.
past participle of see1."*

https://www.google.com/#q=seen


----------



## Contumacious

* UNITED STATES USE OF BIOCHEMICAL WEAPONS AT HOME*

.


----------



## antiquity

paulitician said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether we will punish Syria or not. My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not our call to 'punish' anyone. There is no valid argument for our involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...


What was Clinton reason for interfering with the civil war in Serbia?


----------



## Hoffstra

Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.

thats good to know.


----------



## Contumacious

Hoffstra said:


> Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.
> 
> thats good to know.



139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.

LOL


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but try to approach it from another angle. If another Nation began bombing the U.S., would you consider that a 'limited missile strike' or an act of War?
Click to expand...


                You would think act of war because the purpose was never stated nor an end date given for the bombing.

                With what Obama is proposing, he is saying a limited missile strike that would not last more than one to two days. He has let Syria know this in advance and stated when it would stop, and why it was being done to begin with. 

               When you just say *WAR* in a poll, that brings up different visions in peoples minds. Many people think it means sending 200,000 American troops to invade occupy and pacify all of Syria. Others understand to be one day missile strike.

                    Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?



Since you chose for yourself the incredibly low standard of whether there is a single thing different, ok, yes, there is something different.  It's shorter.  It's sort of like the difference between robbing your neighbor's house in the middle of the night and committing a home invasion where you hold them hostage for a prolonged period of time.  

However, how they are not different.

1)  They are both acts of war.

2)  Neither was done with a declaration of war from congress

3)  Neither is a Constitutional use of the military to defend the United States.

So, is "anything" different?  Yes, the duration.

Are they different?

No.


----------



## U2Edge

Kondor3 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The firing of missiles, or bombing, directed against a foreign government, *is* an Act of War.
> 
> The survey question ( War: Yes or No? ) was correct, both literally and figuratively.
> 
> I do not mean this in an unkind way, but, I will repeat something that I said on this board in the past couple of days...
> 
> Every thinking person over the age of 10 who sees that question, knows what is meant...
> 
> War can be big or small, declared or undeclared, long or short, cheap or costly, bombing-only or full-scale invasion...
> 
> The survey question paints with a broad brush - on the macro level - and is sufficient to our purposes...
> 
> "No" means no.
> 
> "Yes" can mean missile strikes or bombing or full-scale invasion or whatever; TBD later.
> 
> I agree with you that it would be good to have more detailed insights into how folks would like to proceed, if the audience chooses military action, and there may very well be room for such a poll in the coming days, especially if Congress and/or the President end-up taking action that contravenes our own little survey mechanism, but, at present, it seems best to simply take the pulse of the audience as to whether we should take *ANY* action, rather than muddying the waters with details at this early stage in the game.
> 
> The mods can speak for themselves but, at first glance, that's MY guess as to why they chose to ask the audience to focus on the existing one... first things first, so-to-speak. I would craft an Action Survey with more options than the one you served-up but your idea is sound... it's merely a bit premature, methinks... nor not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For whatever that's worth...
Click to expand...


Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people. People use their own definitions to define war which means people are saying NO based on the idea of the United States invading Syria with 200,000 troops when NOTHING remotely like that is about to take place. 

           That is why there should be a poll that specifically defines what Obama has expressedly proposed and then see how people react to it, yes or no. 

            The mods blocked my poll probably because they know that there is more support out there for a limited one to two day missile strike than there is for something generally refered to as WAR. 

            In doing this, it possibly gives a dishonest impression of what people in this forum feel about a military action that is about to happen. There was no reason to close my poll. It asked something different and would give a far more accurate impression of what people in the forum feel about what Obama is actually going to do.


----------



## The T

Contumacious said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether *we will punish Syria or not.* My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
Yes...the Branch _Dividians_ shouldn't be ignored...was that mustard Gas, or just bottled farts lit and thrown causing fires in that compound?

Apples versus cumquats?


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people



True, but irrelevant.  Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you chose for yourself the incredibly low standard of whether there is a single thing different, ok, yes, there is something different.  It's shorter.  It's sort of like the difference between robbing your neighbor's house in the middle of the night and committing a home invasion where you hold them hostage for a prolonged period of time.
> 
> However, how they are not different.
> 
> 1)  They are both acts of war.
> 
> 2)  Neither was done with a declaration of war from congress
> 
> 3)  Neither is a Constitutional use of the military to defend the United States.
> 
> So, is "anything" different?  Yes, the duration.
> 
> Are they different?
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


             Ok, so when do you believe the War in Iraq began?


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but irrelevant.  Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.
Click to expand...


         So when do you believe the war in Iraq began?


----------



## U2Edge

Contumacious said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.
> 
> thats good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.

       I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply using the word WAR conjures up different definitions for different people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but irrelevant.  Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when do you believe the war in Iraq began?
Click to expand...


I would divide it into three stages.

1) HW's lead up to and invasion of Kuwait and attacks in Iraq in the process.

2)  Clinton having no fly zones over the South, then the North and invading Northern Iraq.

3)  W invading Iraq to topple Hussein.

I oppose all three.  Our military should not be in the middle east.  And they were all acts of war.  Not seeing your point.


----------



## kaz

The T said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no possibility of "war with". The only question is whether *we will punish Syria or not.* My guess is that the president is weighing the political impact which is the only thing democrats ever worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...the Branch _Dividians_ shouldn't be ignored...was that mustard Gas, or just bottled farts lit and thrown causing fires in that compound?
> 
> Apples versus cumquats?
Click to expand...


As terrible as Reno murdering American citizens was, I'm with you in that I don't see what that has to do with acts of war against Sovereign nations.


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a massive majority of the members of this forum say no to war on Syria.
> 
> thats good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.
> 
> I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.
Click to expand...


I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.


----------



## The T

kaz said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are we going to punish Syria when we didn't punish Clinton and those who gassed and incinerated the Davidians?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...the Branch _Dividians_ shouldn't be ignored...was that mustard Gas, or just bottled farts lit and thrown causing fires in that compound?
> 
> Apples versus cumquats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As terrible as Reno murdering American citizens was, I'm with you in that I don't see what that has to do with acts of war against Sovereign nations.
Click to expand...

KUDOS and REP! Well done. Precisely. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Inas MUCH *I* don't trust this government, but would rather SPIT ON IT as it exists apart from the Founder's intent? I thought that comparison was LAME and the ultimate embellishment. Apples/Cumquats...indeed.


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but irrelevant.  Military strikes in a sovereign nation is war by any definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when do you believe the war in Iraq began?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would divide it into three stages.
> 
> 1) HW's lead up to and invasion of Kuwait and attacks in Iraq in the process.
> 
> 2)  Clinton having no fly zones over the South, then the North and invading Northern Iraq.
> 
> 3)  W invading Iraq to topple Hussein.
> 
> I oppose all three.  Our military should not be in the middle east.  And they were all acts of war.  Not seeing your point.
Click to expand...



             I was thinking you might say when W invaded in March 2003 which would be incorrect under your previous definition of war. The United States bombed Iraq every year between the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and the start of the operation Iraqi freedom in 2003. So I'm glad to see your consistent in your thinking. 

         I supported all the "phases of that war" as they were necessary for US national security. The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 139 to 6 hummmmmmmmmmmm too close to call.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.
> 
> I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.
Click to expand...


           What is your point?


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio would not be that lop sided if it was properly worded and talked about a limited missile strike instead of just WAR in general.
> 
> I made another thread/poll that explicitly defined what Obama was planning and the MODS closed obviously because they were scared they wouldn't get the lop sided results they were hoping for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?
Click to expand...


In red


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.



The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US.  And the Founders chose the right standard.

I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us.  I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center.  That was an attack on the US.

However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I checked your post count and sure enough you're a newbie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In red
Click to expand...


There is no other logical reason to block a poll that is asking something different from another.


----------



## The T

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US. And the Founders chose the right standard.
> 
> I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us. I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center. That was an attack on the US.
> 
> However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.
Click to expand...

 

Building puppets isn't my thing either. Present the concept to them and HOPE it takes root...otherwise? GET OUT.


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US.  And the Founders chose the right standard.
> 
> I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us.  I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center.  That was an attack on the US.
> 
> However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.
Click to expand...


          Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I. 

          Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!


----------



## The T

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian Gulf has been a vital area of US national security since Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be so in the early 1940s during World War II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't give authorization to use the military for "US interests," it gives authorization to use it to defend the US. And the Founders chose the right standard.
> 
> I did support blowing the crap out of the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda who actually attacked us. I lived in NY many years and worked for a period across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center. That was an attack on the US.
> 
> However, actually invading Afghanistan and "nation building" I don't support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.
> 
> Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!
Click to expand...

 
Yes because the places WE inhabit are to mutual benefit...But I think it is time for those Countries to foot their OWN BILL for a change. WE..._are broke._


----------



## deltex1

DOW futures are up 65 points on the dithering...let the ditherer dither.


----------



## kaz

U2Edge said:


> Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.
> 
> Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!



So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.

I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?

We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.


----------



## deltex1

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.
> 
> Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.
> 
> I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?
> 
> We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.
Click to expand...


We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit.  It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

U2Edge said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but try to approach it from another angle. If another Nation began bombing the U.S., would you consider that a 'limited missile strike' or an act of War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would think act of war because the purpose was never stated nor an end date given for the bombing.
> 
> With what Obama is proposing, he is saying a limited missile strike that would not last more than one to two days. He has let Syria know this in advance and stated when it would stop, and why it was being done to begin with.
> 
> When you just say *WAR* in a poll, that brings up different visions in peoples minds. Many people think it means sending 200,000 American troops to invade occupy and pacify all of Syria. Others understand to be one day missile strike.
> 
> Do you think there is anything different from sending 200,000 US troops to invade occupy and pacify Syria for years, VS a limited one day launching of missiles to take out a few buildings weapon systems?
Click to expand...


You don't declare a mini-war without the full consideration of what may come next. Do you really think they are just going to sit there and not retaliate because obumble just wants to shoot a few missiles, proclaim victory and pat himself on the back like a child looking for his mommie's approval?

A war is a war whether it lasts 24 hours or 24 years and you're completely ignoring the side effect this action may have concerning Iran, Russia and China.


----------



## Hoffstra

attacking Syria may lead to a much wider war.

that's why we better have the full support of the American people, through our representatives, behind this action.


----------



## kaz

deltex1 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.
> 
> Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.
> 
> I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?
> 
> We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit.  It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.
Click to expand...


We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.


----------



## deltex1

kaz said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.
> 
> I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?
> 
> We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit.  It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.
Click to expand...


So who will do it...you libtard pansies?


----------



## kaz

deltex1 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in people's shit because they can't defend their own shit and we need them to buy our shit so we defend their shit against the enemies shit.  It's a shit world...and we need our share of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who will do it...you libtard pansies?
Click to expand...


Who will do it is not my problem.  My problem is that we're doing it.


----------



## deltex1

kaz said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need the military for that, you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who will do it...you libtard pansies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who will do it is not my problem.  My problem is that we're doing it.
Click to expand...


If we don't do it, it will become your problem eventually...only bigger.


----------



## The T

Hoffstra said:


> attacking Syria may lead to a much wider war.
> 
> that's why we better have the full support of the American people, through our representatives, behind this action.


And why OBAMA/Kerry are FORCED to listen...like it or not. They press on with their intentions (as they are still out there stating)?

The Reprecussions from the people will be DIRE for their ouster.


----------



## deltex1

Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?


----------



## Hoffstra

considering this could turn into a big regional war, why the hell should we get involved?


----------



## U2Edge

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe by the standards of 1812, but its 2013. You can't defend the United States in 2013 without taking military action in various parts all over the globe. The United States is heavily impacted by events all over the globe and has been to an extent that the United States could no longer avoid staying out of world Affairs after World War I.
> 
> Defending the United States means far more than simply defending the physical borders of the country. That's why the United States military has been deployed in dozens of countries around the world for the past 70 years!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're in people's shit, and that means we need to defend ourselves.
> 
> I see your point, but wouldn't a more rational alternative be to not be in people's shit?
> 
> We should have no permanent military presence in any other Sovereign nation.
Click to expand...


         Well, we tried that once before and it gave us World War I and then World War II. In order to prevent World War III and the severe cost imposed on the United States by not deterring and preventing conflicts overseas, the United States deployed its forces around the globe and cooperated with its allies to try and bring stability and peace. Abandoning that will not make things better, but in fact bring about the dark days of World War and global economic depression.

          We live in a global economy today and the price you pay at the pump for gas, and for that matter food or anything you buy at the store is dependent on the flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf. United States companies have operations all over the world and companies and individuals have investments all over the world. Billions of dollars worth of goods are traded between countries in Europe, North America, Japan, China and other places. 

           You may physically be in the United States, but your life is heavily impacted by things happening thousands of miles away whether you know it or not. 

            In 1812, it was much easier to simply live isolated in North America. Most people back then were farmers simply living off what they could produce on the land they owned or rented. No electricity, no plumbing, no hospitals, just you and what your family taught you in terms of feeding yourself. No cars, trains, airplanes or automobiles. It took 10 weeks to get across the Atlantic on a ship powered by the wind. The average life expectancy was only 30 due to high infant and child mortality rate. Very different times. People had to depend on themselves because they were indeed isolated. 

           In 2013, the world is growing rapidly smaller. International Relations in all its forms is having an ever increasing impact on everyone's life. 

             Unless you decide to pick up and leave society and become some type of survivalist living underground, in a cave, in a remote wooded area and living off the land, you can't run and hide from this.


----------



## The T

Hoffstra said:


> considering this could turn into a big regional war, why the hell should we get involved?


 
And we shouldn't is the point. Obama at whatever direction he is going (and IT isn't HIM...HE isn't bright enough to orchestrate this...He's a puppet)...is changing the Mideast to favour MUSLIMS.

Time he and his handlers were called OUT.  WE the PEOPLE will NOT be party to it. Not at our blood or treasure.

They Come here and start their crap? Different story. Squashed like the bugs upon the flesh of Humanity they are.


----------



## The T

deltex1 said:


> Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?


And will he don a flightsuit and LAND upon that carrier? I hope he PUKES in his helmet if he attempts it...but then HE hasn't the balls. W served in the military as a fighter jock...Obama? Just an ordinary 'community organizer'...shit disturber...


----------



## Freewill

The T said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?
> 
> 
> 
> And will he don a flightsuit and LAND upon that carrier? I hope he PUKES in his helmet if he attempts it...but then HE hasn't the balls. W served in the military as a fighter jock...Obama? Just an ordinary 'community organizer'...shit disturber...
Click to expand...


I am not sure if he was a distributor, I think he was just a packer.


----------



## The T

Freewill said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carrier group arriving on scene for the "mission accomplished" photo OP...does Obabble have to do everything W did?
> 
> 
> 
> And will he don a flightsuit and LAND upon that carrier? I hope he PUKES in his helmet if he attempts it...but then HE hasn't the balls. W served in the military as a fighter jock...Obama? Just an ordinary 'community organizer'...shit disturber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure if he was a distributor, I think he was just a packer.
Click to expand...

Whatever he was? WE the People are suffering because he loathes everything WE are about..."Dreams From My father" indeed...THEY are being imposed...and _rejected._


----------



## The T

The Fruit never falls FAR..._from the tree it was bourne._


----------



## Geaux4it

Obama is anti-American and our fellow Americans put him in office

America will cease to exist in the context that brave men fought and died for

Thanks you 51% communist

-Geaux


----------



## The T

Geaux4it said:


> Obama is anti-American and our fellow Americans put him in office
> 
> America will cease to exist in the context that brave men fought and died for
> 
> Thanks you 51% communist
> 
> -Geaux


It will IF we let it and cease to remind people of WHOM brought them to the dance to begin with.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.



Do you believe that will be the end of U.S. military action against Syria?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Is supplying Syrian rebels with substantial arms and supplies already fighting a war against Syria?


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.



Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.

-Geaux

http://www.safehaven.com/article/30969/will-congress-endorse-obamas-war-plans-does-it-matter

President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.


----------



## Indofred

Hoffstra said:


> considering this could turn into a big regional war, why the hell should we get involved?



America, Britain, Russia, France and everyone else should stay out.
All supplying weapons does is extend the war and make for people dead or miserable.

Sadly, Obama is probably getting a sodding great big bribe, either directly or indirectly, from Israel.
You watch when he leaves office, a fat cart load of cash will appear for work as an 'advisor' or whatever.


----------



## Indofred

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Is supplying Syrian rebels with substantial arms and supplies already fighting a war against Syria?



No, but it does make you part of the rebel supply chain, thus a legitimate target for military action.
Like it or not, America is now a legitimate target in a war that it should be nowhere near.


----------



## Hoffstra

there are no good guys in this war.

only the civilians....but they both support Assad AND the rebels.

we should let the Arab League handle this.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Indofred said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> considering this could turn into a big regional war, why the hell should we get involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America, Britain, Russia, France and everyone else should stay out.
> All supplying weapons does is extend the war and make for people dead or miserable.
> 
> Sadly, Obama is probably getting a sodding great big bribe, either directly or indirectly, from Israel.
> You watch when he leaves office, a fat cart load of cash will appear for work as an 'advisor' or whatever.
Click to expand...


The US needs to get out of the business of killing babies for Israel. Just reading another article on Mondoweiss about Israels push behind this war. Let them fight their own wars.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
Click to expand...


Even if every single member of Congress votes for this war, it will remain unlawful under intl law, an act of aggression,  and a war crime.


----------



## paulitician

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if every single member of Congress votes for this war, it will remain unlawful under intl law, an act of aggression,  and a war crime.
Click to expand...


Short of a valid legal Declaration of War, i would consider it unlawful as well. And I won't support War with Syria regardless of where the UN stands either. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation to warrant hate & War. I would request my Government not take part in any International Military Action against Syria.


----------



## RoadVirus

I say *NAY*.

I would've said AYE a year ago, but not today.

A year ago, it was Assad vs upset Syrians
Today, it's Assad vs upset Syrians/MB/Al-Queda

We had a chance to support the Syrian uprising on a limited basis (food/medical supplies) while it was confined to Syria. But since outside influences (and i'm not speaking of the West) have decided to join the fray, we'd only be supporting people who hate us.

I supported the US getting involved in Libya because Gaddafi needed to go and the rebellion was still a good majority Libyan and actually praised the US for helping them in the end (i remember reading articles about Pro-US sentiment popping up in rebel-held territories after our involvement began).


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that will be the end of U.S. military action against Syria?
Click to expand...


            Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if every single member of Congress votes for this war, it will remain unlawful under intl law, an act of aggression,  and a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short of a valid legal Declaration of War, i would consider it unlawful as well. And I won't support War with Syria regardless of where the UN stands either. Assad and Syria have done nothing to my Nation to warrant hate & War. I would request my Government not take part in any International Military Action against Syria.
Click to expand...


Did you support United States going to war with Germany in World War II? What did Germany do to the United States that warrented going to war against Germany in 1941?


----------



## U2Edge

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if every single member of Congress votes for this war, it will remain unlawful under intl law, an act of aggression,  and a war crime.
Click to expand...


Really? So enforcing the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is unlawful under international law and a war crime? LOL


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.




Or, the war escalates into Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and finally into Iran, the real target all along. Time to clean up Iran, the administration has decided, IMO; just as the Bush administration decided to use 9/11 to clean up Iraq. "Never let a crisis go to waste." 

But that sure didn't work, the Iraq "solve," and I don't like getting lied into WWIII in Iran and against Russia, China, Pakistan, everybody else. 

You all should realize that our US immunity to attack from anybody and everybody will someday come to an end: someday, somebody will attack us back.


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Did you support United States going to war with Germany in World War II? What did Germany do to the United States that warrented going to war against Germany in 1941?



They declared war on us formally the week Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and started sinking our ships.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
Click to expand...


So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?

               When you use the general term WAR without specifically describing the action to be taken, you have people voting their approval or disapproval based on their visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the actual action that Obama is planning. Essentially, people are voting in the poll based on their many different visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the action that has been suggested. That totally invalidates the poll!


----------



## Vox

roadvirus said:


> i say *nay*.
> 
> *i would've said aye a year ago, but not today.*
> 
> *a year ago, it was assad vs upset syrians
> today, it's assad vs upset syrians/mb/al-queda*
> 
> we had a chance to support the syrian uprising on a limited basis (food/medical supplies) while it was confined to syria. But since outside influences (and i'm not speaking of the west) have decided to join the fray, we'd only be supporting people who hate us.
> 
> I supported the us getting involved in libya because gaddafi needed to go and the rebellion was still a good majority libyan and actually praised the us for helping them in the end (i remember reading articles about pro-us sentiment popping up in rebel-held territories after our involvement began).



this


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you support United States going to war with Germany in World War II? What did Germany do to the United States that warrented going to war against Germany in 1941?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They declared war on us formally the week Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and started sinking our ships.
Click to expand...


                  So if tomorrow Namibia formally declared war on the United States without any subsequent military action, you would advocate invading and overthrowing the government of Namibia just because of their "formal declaration of war"?

                 What if Germany had not sunk any ships or declared war on the United States, you would have supported letting Hitler do his thing?


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?
> 
> When you use the general term WAR without specifically describing the action to be taken, you have people voting their approval or disapproval based on their visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the actual action that Obama is planning. Essentially, people are voting in the poll based on their many different visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the action that has been suggested. That totally invalidates the poll!
Click to expand...


I'm sure Syria and Russia would view a missile strike as an act of war. I know we would if tables were turned

-Geaux


----------



## Vox

Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of  sudden - such a dire necessity?


----------



## Katzndogz

obama has said, many times, that a strike would not be designed to remove Assad from power.    They will not be designed to remove the chemical weapons themselves.  Therefore it has no point.  There is no end game.   obama merely wants to play with his toys while he still has them to play with.

The action in Libya was designed to put al quaeda in power.  It worked.   obama intends this to work the same way.  

Of course there is step two.  The movement of chemical weapons to Egypt so terrorists can use them there too asking for America to help the muslim brotherhood.   

obama must be stopped.  If he ignores our government, someone else will have to step in and stop him.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, the war escalates into Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and finally into Iran, the real target all along. Time to clean up Iran, the administration has decided, IMO; just as the Bush administration decided to use 9/11 to clean up Iraq. "Never let a crisis go to waste."
> 
> But that sure didn't work, the Iraq "solve," and I don't like getting lied into WWIII in Iran and against Russia, China, Pakistan, everybody else.
> 
> You all should realize that our US immunity to attack from anybody and everybody will someday come to an end: someday, somebody will attack us back.
Click to expand...


          The Iraq war worked just fine. Saddam was removed in 2003, US troops left in 2011 and our man MALIKI is still in charge of Iraq in 2013 after first coming into office there in 2006!

           As for Syria, it would not be in Assad's interest to escalate at all. He did not strike back when Israel hit him over the past year and he definitely won't strike back now. He is struggling against the rebels in his country and does not have time or resourses for foreign adventures. 

           China has not launched direct military action against another country since 1979 and the Russians did nothing when we bombed their little Ally Serbia in 1999. Iran has not directly engaged in military action against any country since the 1980s. Iran uses proxies like Hezbolah instead. 

           A missile strike would do a lot of good and have few if any consequences for the world. Chemical weapons use is stopped, and Assad goes back to fighting a conventional war in his own country. Syria once again fades from the headlines.


----------



## U2Edge

Vox said:


> Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of  sudden - such a dire necessity?



                There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!*


----------



## dilloduck

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of  sudden - such a dire necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!*
Click to expand...


Oh please-----start a trend ????


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a missile strike is considered an act of war.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter? | Ron Paul | Safehaven.com
> 
> President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?
> 
> When you use the general term WAR without specifically describing the action to be taken, you have people voting their approval or disapproval based on their visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the actual action that Obama is planning. Essentially, people are voting in the poll based on their many different visions of what WAR is, as opposed to the action that has been suggested. That totally invalidates the poll!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Syria and Russia would view a missile strike as an act of war. I know we would if tables were turned
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of  sudden - such a dire necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO![*
Click to expand...

*

have you been in hibernation the last 25 years?

the latest of Assad or rebels using the CW was just the latest.
Assad used it in last December - and where were YOU THEN?*


----------



## U2Edge

dilloduck said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of  sudden - such a dire necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please-----start a trend ????
Click to expand...


              If chemical weapon possession and use starts to be seen as OK, and just another weapon in someone's arsenal, then it indeed will become a TREND!

              The intelligent thing to do would be to take action to prevent that.


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you support United States going to war with Germany in World War II? What did Germany do to the United States that warrented going to war against Germany in 1941?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They declared war on us formally the week Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and started sinking our ships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if tomorrow Namibia formally declared war on the United States without any subsequent military action, you would advocate invading and overthrowing the government of Namibia just because of their "formal declaration of war"?
> 
> What if Germany had not sunk any ships or declared war on the United States, you would have supported letting Hitler do his thing?
Click to expand...


Well, sure! That's what we were trying so hard to do, stay out of BOTH world wars. We didn't get dragged into WWI until 1917 (the Zimmerman telegram, that functioned as another German declaration of war, to an outraged America public -- Germany offered to help Mexico reconquer three Southwest America states if they would distract us from WWI: whoops, we found out). We didn't get dragged into WWII until December of 1941, very late.

The fact that we cannot stay out of world wars, that everyone conspires to drag us in because we're so big and powerful and rich is why after WWII we started this "world policeman" role with forward power projection foreign bases everywhere. We are committed to stopping world wars before they start, is the idea. It was a good idea for a long time. Obviously that has not been working out lately: we've been starting wars, not stopping them. Any country that wildly starts wars everywhere runs a real danger of being viewed as a rabid dog that nations of the world have to band together to shoot down -- like Germany was viewed (accurately) under both the Kaiser and later, Hitler. 

All the same, you make a good point about Namibia. That's why I added "and started sinking our ships" to the Hitler declaration of war. They have to be able to do something about it, and also, they have to ACTUALLY do something about it or their "declaration of war" need not be taken seriously. Obviously Germany was a powerful enemy: we barely won, twice. 

Right now both North Korea and Iran have current declarations of war operative against us. NK has been in a state of war for decades and frequently reiterates it. But they don't actually do much, and not against us, wisely. It wouldn't take much, frankly.

Iran regularly says they want to kill all Americans, nuke us, make war on us, etc. etc., and though the speakers are at a high government level, they don't actually DO anything.  Again, wisely, because that situation is on a knife edge. Iran has already declared war against us and against Israel. If they suddenly start sinking ships, we would be actually at war with them. A declaration is not enough, you are right. Talk is cheap, but sinking ships matters.

Note that our shelling Syria would be from ships, not from the air, as we did twice against Libya. I see trouble coming. Sunk ships are our normal entry into war: that's why Osama bin Laden, desperate to get our attention, hit the U.S.S. Cole. We still didn't pay attention, because he was not attached to a state. But the faked Tonkin Gulf attack on our ship and the faked Spanish attack on the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor, and the real German attacks on our shipping, and the real Japanese attacks on our ships at Pearl Harbor --- all those attacks got us into war. It's not the only way, but sunk ships are the usual way to get us into war, and sometimes it's a simple lie by our own government.

I think those American warships are out there to play sitting ducks to get us into a war with Iran.


----------



## Katzndogz

The use of chemical weapons should be stopped.  Since obama's allies in al quaeda are the ones using those weapons, we will not stop it.


----------



## U2Edge

Vox said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, stop that bogus claim that we SUDDENLY need to address CW usage in the ME - it has been used by various dictators there at least for the last 20 years, including Assad, the latest being in last December - and not even a peep of outrage or concern for "poor children dying" - and all of  sudden - such a dire necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO![*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> have you been in hibernation the last 25 years?
> 
> the latest of Assad or rebels using the CW was just the latest.
> Assad used it in last December - and where were YOU THEN?*
Click to expand...

*

           I think you should ask yourself that. 

         The allegations of use on a small scale prior to the August 21st attack are just that. The August 21st attack is indisputability CONFIRMED unlike the other small scale alleged attacks, plus WE KNOW THIS TIME WHO LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!

         Please, tell us where else Sarin Gas was used by a State on a large scale in between 1989 and 2013!*


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please-----start a trend ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If chemical weapon possession and use starts to be seen as OK, and just another weapon in someone's arsenal, then it indeed will become a TREND!
> 
> The intelligent thing to do would be to take action to prevent that.
Click to expand...


it has been a trend for the whole XX and XXI century.


----------



## Camp

Other than what has been noted, what dictators have used chemical warfare? That is a heck of a claim to make to back up your position. You should have to show some evidence of what you claim. And when Assad started to use chem warfare he was told to stop. That is what the "Red Line" was all about.


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was alleged small usage in Syria in June and July. But the last mass usage of Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world was in Iraq back in 1988. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on August 21, 2013 was the largest chemical weapons attack since March 16, 1988 in Halabja Iraq. *We have had 25 years of virtually no chemical weapons use anywhere on the planet, and NOW Assad thinks in 2013 he can start a new trend. HELL NO![*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> have you been in hibernation the last 25 years?
> 
> the latest of Assad or rebels using the CW was just the latest.
> Assad used it in last December - and where were YOU THEN?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> I think you should ask yourself that.
> 
> The allegations of use on a small scale prior to the August 21st attack are just that. The August 21st attack is indisputability CONFIRMED unlike the other small scale alleged attacks, plus WE KNOW THIS TIME WHO LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!
> 
> Please, tell us where else Sarin Gas was used by a State on a large scale in between 1989 and 2013!*
Click to expand...

*


IT DOES NOT MATTER.

It has been used before and it will be used again.

We should NOT GET INVOLVED.

PERIOD.*


----------



## Vox

Camp said:


> Other than what has been noted, what dictators have used chemical warfare? That is a heck of a claim to make to back up your position. You should have to show some evidence of what you claim. And when Assad started to use chem warfare he was told to stop. That is what the "Red Line" was all about.



Short memory?

Hussein gassing Kurds brings some back?


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?




You are too optimistic, IMO. You think you know that Obama means to launch a single punitive missile to destroy a single empty building in Damascus? How can you possibly know that? It seems to me improbable in the extreme that a punitive strike THAT small would be launched: even the one Reagan launched against Qaddafi with two jets hit more than that, and we add ships to our strike force in the Mediterranean daily now. 

You also think everything will stay the same as it is this five minutes. That's the human condition: we think this five minute is it, for good or ill: we can't look past right NOW. 

However, in fact, time passes and things change. History shows this five minutes doesn't last: sometimes huge wars start up.


----------



## Hoffstra

The United States is not the worlds' policeman.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> They declared war on us formally the week Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and started sinking our ships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if tomorrow Namibia formally declared war on the United States without any subsequent military action, you would advocate invading and overthrowing the government of Namibia just because of their "formal declaration of war"?
> 
> What if Germany had not sunk any ships or declared war on the United States, you would have supported letting Hitler do his thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sure! That's what we were trying so hard to do, stay out of BOTH world wars. We didn't get dragged into WWI until 1917 (the Zimmerman telegram, that functioned as another German declaration of war, to an outraged America public -- Germany offered to help Mexico reconquer three Southwest America states if they would distract us from WWI: whoops, we found out). We didn't get dragged into WWII until December of 1941, very late.
> 
> The fact that we cannot stay out of world wars, that everyone conspires to drag us in because we're so big and powerful and rich is why after WWII we started this "world policeman" role with forward power projection foreign bases everywhere. We are committed to stopping world wars before they start, is the idea. It was a good idea for a long time. Obviously that has not been working out lately: we've been starting wars, not stopping them. Any country that wildly starts wars everywhere runs a real danger of being viewed as a rabid dog that nations of the world have to band together to shoot down -- like Germany was viewed (accurately) under both the Kaiser and later, Hitler.
> 
> All the same, you make a good point about Namibia. That's why I added "and started sinking our ships" to the Hitler declaration of war. They have to be able to do something about it, and also, they have to ACTUALLY do something about it or their "declaration of war" need not be taken seriously. Obviously Germany was a powerful enemy: we barely won, twice.
> 
> Right now both North Korea and Iran have current declarations of war operative against us. NK has been in a state of war for decades and frequently reiterates it. But they don't actually do much, and not against us, wisely. It wouldn't take much, frankly.
> 
> Iran regularly says they want to kill all Americans, nuke us, make war on us, etc. etc., and though the speakers are at a high government level, they don't actually DO anything.  Again, wisely, because that situation is on a knife edge. Iran has already declared war against us and against Israel. If they suddenly start sinking ships, we would be actually at war with them. A declaration is not enough, you are right. Talk is cheap, but sinking ships matters.
> 
> Note that our shelling Syria would be from ships, not from the air, as we did twice against Libya. I see trouble coming. Sunk ships are our normal entry into war: that's why Osama bin Laden, desperate to get our attention, hit the U.S.S. Cole. We still didn't pay attention, because he was not attached to a state. But the faked Tonkin Gulf attack on our ship and the faked Spanish attack on the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor, and the real German attacks on our shipping, and the real Japanese attacks on our ships at Pearl Harbor --- all those attacks got us into war. It's not the only way, but sunk ships are the usual way to get us into war, and sometimes it's a simple lie by our own government.
> 
> I think those American warships are out there to play sitting ducks to get us into a war with Iran.
Click to expand...


            If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened. 

            If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II. 

            The cruise missile launches proposed by Obama will not only come from ships but also air platforms like the B-2 Bomber and other aircraft. The United States also has large numbers of ALCM's Air Launched Cruise Missiles. 

             Also the Cruise Missile ranges and stand off distances for firing outrange anything Syria has. 

             Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened.
> 
> If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II.
> 
> The cruise missile launches proposed by Obama will not only come from ships but also air platforms like the B-2 Bomber and other aircraft. The United States also has large numbers of ALCM's Air Launched Cruise Missiles.
> 
> Also the Cruise Missile ranges and stand off distances for firing outrange anything Syria has.
> 
> Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.



if one would know where one would fell - he will put a soft mattress there.

US is not a world policeman or the world nanny.

And should not be.

ENOUGH


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think invading and occupying Syria with 200,000 US troops is no different than launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too optimistic, IMO. You think you know that Obama means to launch a single punitive missile to destroy a single empty building in Damascus? How can you possibly know that? It seems to me improbable in the extreme that a punitive strike THAT small would be launched: even the one Reagan launched against Qaddafi with two jets hit more than that, and we add ships to our strike force in the Mediterranean daily now.
> 
> You also think everything will stay the same as it is this five minutes. That's the human condition: we think this five minute is it, for good or ill: we can't look past right NOW.
> 
> However, in fact, time passes and things change. History shows this five minutes doesn't last: sometimes huge wars start up.
Click to expand...


             It will probably be about 300 cruise missiles and Assad will get the message and that will be it. You'll see. Esculating against the United States or its allies and counter productive to the objectives of the Iranians, Russians and Assad's regime in Syria. They are focused on defeating the rebels and preserving Assad's regime. Esculating against the United States and its allies would put those objectives in jeopardy.


----------



## U2Edge

Vox said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened.
> 
> If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II.
> 
> The cruise missile launches proposed by Obama will not only come from ships but also air platforms like the B-2 Bomber and other aircraft. The United States also has large numbers of ALCM's Air Launched Cruise Missiles.
> 
> Also the Cruise Missile ranges and stand off distances for firing outrange anything Syria has.
> 
> Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if one would know where one would fell - he will put a soft mattress there.
> 
> US is not a world policeman or the world nanny.
> 
> And should not be.
> 
> ENOUGH
Click to expand...


        Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> WE KNOW THIS TIME WHO LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!




No, we do not know who launched that attack.

It may very well have been the rebels, desperate and making last stand, trying to get usto come in on their side by gassing their own people.

My belief is that is what happened.



Are we all remembering that our government and all governments past and present lies and lies and lies and lies?

This government will lie us into war to clean up Iran if they can. Do you want that?  Remember that lying to the American people is a NORMAL way to fool us into war. WMD in Iraq, Tonkin Gulf, Remember the Maine.


----------



## Mr Natural

With our technology, shouldn't we be able to drone Assad and his people personally?


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.




Of course it does!! That's the whole POINT of us doing it, rather than France; rather than Britain; rather than China, rather than the European Union.

There are plenty of Powers that COULD launch a missile strike against Syria, but everyone looks to us to do it. Why? Because we took on the world policeman role after WWII. 

However, that role has probably worn out just about ------- now.

Nothing lasts forever.


----------



## Hoffstra

U2Edge said:


> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.



sure it does.

without UN authorization, it would mean that the USA has taken it upon itself to be the judge, jury, and executioner of what is "right" and "moral" in the world.


----------



## Circe

Mr Clean said:


> With our technology, shouldn't we be able to drone Assad and his people personally?



In theory, we can't go after a head of state unless we are in an active war against them.

Because if we do, they'll go after our head of state, like Castro had Kennedy shot.




Wait......all considered, maybe going after Assad personally is a good idea after all.


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.



yes, it does.

it's none of our business. 

They can gas themselves up.


----------



## Vox

Circe said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> With our technology, shouldn't we be able to drone Assad and his people personally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In theory, we can't go after a head of state unless we are in an active war against them.
> 
> Because if we do, they'll go after our head of state, like Castro had Kennedy shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait......all considered, maybe going after Assad personally is a good idea after al.
Click to expand...


at least it is cheaper


----------



## deltex1

Mr Clean said:


> With our technology, shouldn't we be able to drone Assad and his people personally?



We need a drone with balls.


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened.
> 
> If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II.



I am sure you are perfectly correct!! AND -- if Martian tripods had landed either of those times, the whole word would have united on the side of Humankind and not had world wars at all!  [Sigh]

Moving right along, however, to 2013 and reality.....




> Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.



Our aircraft carriers are the very incarnation of sitting duckiness. It swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it sinks like a shot duck........

Good way to get a war started with Iran. Expect piles of lies coming up from your government.


----------



## percysunshine

Where is Samantha Powers? Does she play golf?


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> ...launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?






U2Edge said:


> It will probably be about 300 cruise missiles and Assad will get the message and that will be it. You'll see.




Well, which is it gonna be?  First you say Oobop will launch a single missile into an empty building, second you say it's sure to be 300 cruise missiles. 

These are not the same. 

Anyway, I think the whole point is to clean up Iran, but so far, the heritage of the Iraq debacle is that no one believes Obama's stupid WMD claims, because Bush's were false and we know they were meant to lie us into war. 

This is the same deal, IMO. But Congress MAY stop it. 

May.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not voted in this poll because its not asking the right question. Going to War with Syria and launching a limited missile strike are two different things. You will get different poll results depending how the poll is worded! Unfortunately the mods have closed my poll with the different wording. I hope they re-open it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that will be the end of U.S. military action against Syria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.
Click to expand...

Where's your proof that Asaad has used chemical weapons?


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will probably be about 300 cruise missiles and Assad will get the message and that will be it. You'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, which is it gonna be?  First you say Oobop will launch a single missile into an empty building, second you say it's sure to be 300 cruise missiles.
> 
> These are not the same.
> 
> Anyway, I think the whole point is to clean up Iran, but so far, the heritage of the Iraq debacle is that no one believes Obama's stupid WMD claims, because Bush's were false and we know they were meant to lie us into war.
> 
> This is the same deal, IMO. But Congress MAY stop it.
> 
> May.
Click to expand...


I NEVER said that would be the attack, I responding to your point that WAR is WAR no matter the action so I asked you if an invasion of 200,000 troops was the same as a cruise missile hitting an empty building. You still have yet to answer my question. 

                Saddam did at one time have WMD and he had lied and cheated the UN inspectors in the years after the first Gulf War and was selling Billions of dollars of oil illegally on the black market and was getting out from under the containment box he had been put in. It was a necessity to remove Saddam. 

              Its amazing how many supporters Saddam and Assad have in this forum!


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that will be the end of U.S. military action against Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's your proof that Asaad has used chemical weapons?
Click to expand...


Everywhere! Take a look for yourself:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GPTqxf8rE&bpctr=1378150074]Syria chemical weapons - Sarin gas attack near Damascus? - Truthloader - YouTube[/ame]

             A very broad area was hit, too broad an area and concentration levels too great for it to have been rebels with their limited delivery means!


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the United States had deployed a significant number of troops in Western Europe before the start of World War I, World War I would not of happened.
> 
> If the Allies had acted against Germany in 1935 and enforced the treaties from World War I, Hitler would have been removed from the scene with relatively little loss of life compared to World War II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are perfectly correct!! AND -- if Martian tripods had landed either of those times, the whole word would have united on the side of Humankind and not had world wars at all!  [Sigh]
> 
> Moving right along, however, to 2013 and reality.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also a United States Aircraft Carrier is now moving up the Red Sea toward the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our aircraft carriers are the very incarnation of sitting duckiness. It swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it sinks like a shot duck........
> 
> Good way to get a war started with Iran. Expect piles of lies coming up from your government.
Click to expand...


             And when was the last time a U.S. Aircraft Carrier was sunk?


----------



## R.C. Christian

percysunshine said:


> Where is Samantha Powers? Does she play golf?



She's only useful when the U.S is forced to pay token homage to the U.N. so they can Convince them to do silly things for the sake of imperium such as establishing no fly zones over Libya.


----------



## U2Edge

Vox said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does.
> 
> it's none of our business.
> 
> They can gas themselves up.
Click to expand...


                    It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.


----------



## U2Edge

Hoffstra said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure it does.
> 
> without UN authorization, it would mean that the USA has taken it upon itself to be the judge, jury, and executioner of what is "right" and "moral" in the world.
Click to expand...


 Responding to contain the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION is acting in the self defense of the United States. An increase in possession and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is a serious threat to the United States and the rest of the world. 

             The United States does not need UN authorization to protect itself!


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE KNOW THIS TIME WHO LAUNCHED THE ATTACK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we do not know who launched that attack.
> 
> It may very well have been the rebels, desperate and making last stand, trying to get usto come in on their side by gassing their own people.
> 
> My belief is that is what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we all remembering that our government and all governments past and present lies and lies and lies and lies?
> 
> This government will lie us into war to clean up Iran if they can. Do you want that?  Remember that lying to the American people is a NORMAL way to fool us into war. WMD in Iraq, Tonkin Gulf, Remember the Maine.
Click to expand...


How exactly would the rebels be able to disperse such chemicals in those levels of quantities over such a wide area? The Syrian army has the MEANS to do that as they have the heavy weapons and other equipment. Most rebel heavy weapons only consist of motars and RPG's. *Not the correct delivery systems to launch the largest Sarin Gas attack in a quarter of a century!*

              Finally, the NSA monitors the communications of the Syrian military. We know they did it because we have the audio for the orders. Radar saw the launch of the missiles and artillery, news reporters recorded the impact when they got to the area.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does.
> 
> it's none of our business.
> 
> They can gas themselves up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
Click to expand...


Consequences for who?

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does.
> 
> it's none of our business.
> 
> They can gas themselves up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


                The United States and the rest of the world!


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...launching a single missile to destroy an empty building in Damascus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will probably be about 300 cruise missiles and Assad will get the message and that will be it. You'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, which is it gonna be?  First you say Oobop will launch a single missile into an empty building, second you say it's sure to be 300 cruise missiles.
> 
> These are not the same.
> 
> Anyway, I think the whole point is to clean up Iran, but so far, the heritage of the Iraq debacle is that no one believes Obama's stupid WMD claims, because Bush's were false and we know they were meant to lie us into war.
> 
> This is the same deal, IMO. But Congress MAY stop it.
> 
> May.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I NEVER said that would be the attack, I responding to your point that WAR is WAR no matter the action so I asked you if an invasion of 200,000 troops was the same as a cruise missile hitting an empty building. You still have yet to answer my question.
Click to expand...


Oh, hey, I can answer that! No, indeed, an invasion of 200,000 troops is DIFFERENT from a single cruise missile hitting an empty building, just as the latter is DIFFERENT from 300 cruise missiles fired at Syria!!

This is a stupid conversation. Meaningless and pointless and I can't figure out what you are talking about. And you are heading into insult, so let's just end it.


----------



## RandallFlagg

percysunshine said:


> Where is Samantha Powers? Does she play golf?



Most likely cowering in a corner in the fetal position, waiting to be told what to do....


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States and the rest of the world!
Click to expand...


How is it a threat to the Unites States? As for the rest of the world, I could care less.

-Geaux


----------



## R.C. Christian

u2edge said:


> geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u2edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is our business when it comes to weapons of mass destruction! There will be consequences to not responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> consequences for who?
> 
> -geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the united states and the rest of the world!
Click to expand...


fail, lol^^


----------



## Circe

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...



I suppose he's pretending that somehow Assad means to WMD Maryland or Ohio or somewhere in these united states with poison gas he's going to launch at us because, you know, they are WMD and that's supposed to scare us into war.

As if. 

I can't figure out what U2Edge is on about at all.

Just a reflex Obama supporter? I don't know. He says different things all the time.

Crazy discussion. 

Could we get serious about Syria again?


----------



## Geaux4it

Circe said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose he's pretending that somehow Assad means to WMD Maryland or Ohio or somewhere in these united states with poison gas he's going to launch at us because, you know, they are WMD and that's supposed to scare us into war.
> 
> As if.
> 
> I can't figure out what U2Edge is on about at all.
> 
> Just a reflex Obama supporter? I don't know. He says different things all the time.
> 
> Crazy discussion.
> 
> Could we get serious about Syria again?
Click to expand...


lol.. Hell, if that was the case, we would of launched on Russia 10-fold because they COULD use nukes on us. 

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States and the rest of the world!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it a threat to the Unites States? As for the rest of the world, I could care less.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Weapons of Mass Destruction, their possession and the use of them are huge threat to the United States and the rest of the World. Weapons of Mass Destruction erode the advantages that the United States has in conventional weaponry. Anything that erodes or weakens are defenses is a threat to us. 

              The United States has business dealings all the way around the world. The United States is interdependent with the rest of the world and there for can't ignore it.

             You may not know it, but the price you pay for the food you put in your mouth and the gas you pump into your car is dependent on events and conditions on the otherside of the globe!


----------



## U2Edge

R.C. Christian said:


> u2edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> consequences for who?
> 
> -geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the united states and the rest of the world!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fail, lol^^
Click to expand...


An appropriate teenage response.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States and the rest of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a threat to the Unites States? As for the rest of the world, I could care less.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weapons of Mass Destruction, their possession and the use of them are huge threat to the United States and the rest of the World. Weapons of Mass Destruction erode the advantages that the United States has in conventional weaponry. Anything that erodes or weakens are defenses is a threat to us.
> 
> The United States has business dealings all the way around the world. The United States is interdependent with the rest of the world and there for can't ignore it.
> 
> You may not know it, but the price you pay for the food you put in your mouth and the gas you pump into your car is dependent on events and conditions on the otherside of the globe!
Click to expand...


Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?

We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose he's pretending that somehow Assad means to WMD Maryland or Ohio or somewhere in these united states with poison gas he's going to launch at us because, you know, they are WMD and that's supposed to scare us into war.
> 
> As if.
> 
> I can't figure out what U2Edge is on about at all.
> 
> Just a reflex Obama supporter? I don't know. He says different things all the time.
> 
> Crazy discussion.
> 
> Could we get serious about Syria again?
Click to expand...



          This is not the year 1812. You don't have to physically attack American soil to be a threat to the United States! Open your mind up a little to what the United States has for decades defended across the globe as a matter of national security!

          Oh, and I voted AGAINST Obama in each election!


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consequences for who?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose he's pretending that somehow Assad means to WMD Maryland or Ohio or somewhere in these united states with poison gas he's going to launch at us because, you know, they are WMD and that's supposed to scare us into war.
> 
> As if.
> 
> I can't figure out what U2Edge is on about at all.
> 
> Just a reflex Obama supporter? I don't know. He says different things all the time.
> 
> Crazy discussion.
> 
> Could we get serious about Syria again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the year 1812. You don't have to physically attack American soil to be a threat to the United States! Open your mind up a little to what the United States has for decades defended across the globe as a matter of national security!
> 
> Oh, and I voted AGAINST Obama in each election!
Click to expand...


So did I lol... But I agree with him here. Despite his ill advised red line and all, I support him taking no action and punting to Congress who will drop this in quick fashion.

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a threat to the Unites States? As for the rest of the world, I could care less.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons of Mass Destruction, their possession and the use of them are huge threat to the United States and the rest of the World. Weapons of Mass Destruction erode the advantages that the United States has in conventional weaponry. Anything that erodes or weakens are defenses is a threat to us.
> 
> The United States has business dealings all the way around the world. The United States is interdependent with the rest of the world and there for can't ignore it.
> 
> You may not know it, but the price you pay for the food you put in your mouth and the gas you pump into your car is dependent on events and conditions on the otherside of the globe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?
> 
> We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


           Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!

          To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!


----------



## Kondor3

Syrian-controlled chemical weapons existed as a Level X threat to the US, before Syria used them...

Syrian-controlled chemical weapons exist as a Level X threat to the US, after Syria used them...

Those weapons were not directed against the United States nor its allies...

There has been no change in delivery systems...

Those delivery systems are not capable of reaching our shores, nor those of all or most of our allies...

There is no indication that such weapons are about to be turned against the US or its allies...

I see no greater threat today, than last year...

Other than a confirmation that the Syrians are willing to use them against their own rebels and civilians...

I do not perceive an imminent threat to the United States nor its allies, nor substantive indications of intent to use them in an interdiction or other capacity designed to harm the strategic interests of ourselves nor our friends...

Consequently, should we decide to take-off our World Policeman hat on this one, I see no pressing alternative arguments in favor of military intervention, this time...

Sorry...


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons of Mass Destruction, their possession and the use of them are huge threat to the United States and the rest of the World. Weapons of Mass Destruction erode the advantages that the United States has in conventional weaponry. Anything that erodes or weakens are defenses is a threat to us.
> 
> The United States has business dealings all the way around the world. The United States is interdependent with the rest of the world and there for can't ignore it.
> 
> You may not know it, but the price you pay for the food you put in your mouth and the gas you pump into your car is dependent on events and conditions on the otherside of the globe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?
> 
> We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!
> 
> To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!
Click to expand...


Then by this logic, we should launch on Russia or Iran because we 'might' have to face them down the road. Sorry, Syria having gas does not reach the level requiring our assault.

-Geaux


----------



## RandallFlagg

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose he's pretending that somehow Assad means to WMD Maryland or Ohio or somewhere in these united states with poison gas he's going to launch at us because, you know, they are WMD and that's supposed to scare us into war.
> 
> As if.
> 
> I can't figure out what U2Edge is on about at all.
> 
> Just a reflex Obama supporter? I don't know. He says different things all the time.
> 
> Crazy discussion.
> 
> Could we get serious about Syria again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the year 1812. You don't have to physically attack American soil to be a threat to the United States! Open your mind up a little to what the United States has for decades defended across the globe as a matter of national security!
> 
> Oh, and I voted AGAINST Obama in each election!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did I lol... But I agree with him here. Despite his ill advised red line and all, I support him taking no action and punting to Congress who will drop this in quick fashion.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


And that is the bottom line. Barry found himself backed into a corner where he was going to have to act and he retreated. Punt the ball over to Congress so he has a scapegoat, either way.

Typical liberal. Big talk and nothing in the tank.


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Launching a Cruise Missile strike against Syria does not make the United States the worlds policeman or nanny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does.
> 
> it's none of our business.
> 
> They can gas themselves up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is our business when it comes to WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There will be consequences to not responding.
Click to expand...


no it is not.

it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.

IT IS NOT.

CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons of Mass Destruction, their possession and the use of them are huge threat to the United States and the rest of the World. Weapons of Mass Destruction erode the advantages that the United States has in conventional weaponry. Anything that erodes or weakens are defenses is a threat to us.
> 
> The United States has business dealings all the way around the world. The United States is interdependent with the rest of the world and there for can't ignore it.
> 
> You may not know it, but the price you pay for the food you put in your mouth and the gas you pump into your car is dependent on events and conditions on the otherside of the globe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?
> 
> We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!
> 
> To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!
Click to expand...


Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?


----------



## U2Edge

Kondor3 said:


> Syrian-controlled chemical weapons existed as a Level X threat to the US, before Syria used them...
> 
> Syrian-controlled chemical weapons exist as a Level X threat to the US, after Syria used them...
> 
> ...



              Which is irrelevant! The threat involves the possible actions of various countries around the globe in the FUTURE and involves the problems of PROLIFERATION!



> Those weapons were not directed against the United States nor its allies...
> 
> There has been no change in delivery systems...



             Once again, irrelevant! The threat involves the possible actions of various countries around the globe in the FUTURE and involves the problems of PROLIFERATION now that Syria has launched the largest chemical weapons attack in 25 years!

                By the way, Syria has a variety of weapons systems that can deliver chemical weapons into Turkey(NATO member), Israel(historic US Ally), and Jordan. 

                British military bases on Cyprus are in range of certain Syrian Weapon sys  tems. 



> I see no greater threat today, than last year...
> 
> Other than a confirmation that the Syrians are willing to use them against their own rebels and civilians...
> 
> I do not perceive an imminent threat to the United States nor its allies...
> 
> Sorry...



          A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future. If chemical weapons start to be come seen as normal, then their possession and use will spread. The threat and consequences or that of PROLIFERATION!

       But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it.

Sorry...


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?
> 
> We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!
> 
> To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?
Click to expand...


Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!


----------



## Circe

Vox said:


> no it is not.
> 
> it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.
> 
> IT IS NOT.
> 
> CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.




Besides, what is this virginal outrage nonsense? Germany invented poison gas; Britain and France quickly followed suit; the United States made so much poison gas of many kinds that we had tons and tons and tons of mustard gas stored up till a couple years ago, not to mention all the other modern stuff we STILL have; and Russia made just as much and is now selling Sarin to these godforsaken Syrians. 

And the Syrians are using it. Well, duh, what do we expect? Everyone else made it, sold it, used it. Why the sudden outrage? 

This genie is out of the bottle and is being used to depopulate enemy strongholds, and it is a weapon well-suited for that, clearly. 

Whatever.   S.E.P., as it says in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Else's Problem.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk- BTW- why are we concerned about using conventional weaponry against Syria, for where fear of gas attack would manifest?
> 
> We can ignore this just like Obama, and rightfully should
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!
> 
> To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then by this logic, we should launch on Russia or Iran because we 'might' have to face them down the road. Sorry, Syria having gas does not reach the level requiring our assault.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


           Were not assaulting Syria because they simply have chemical weapons, were assaulting them for launching the largest chemical weapons strike in 25 years and to deter them from using Chemical weapons again as well as deter others from thinking that Chemical Weapon use is somehow ok.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were concerned what are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines would face in any conflict overseas in defense of US national Security. Not responding to this massive use of Chemical Weapons make it more likely that the men and women who serve this country will have to go into battle against such weapons in the future, whether it be somewhere in the Persian gulf, Asia or elsewhere where the United States is defending US Security!
> 
> To advocate to do nothing makes the world a more dangerous place, and the first to see the results of that more dangerous world will be the United States military!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!
Click to expand...


Coming out of nowhere with thousands of times greater armament than Syria and interjecting ourselves is pretty much begging for CW to be used. Many countries have CW, and the U.S. recklessly fighting all these small countries will produce just that. It has been shown that the leadership will be executed when we conquer them, so what do they have to lose by using CW?


----------



## Circe

Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.

It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.

Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.



They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.

They won't. 

It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it is not.
> 
> it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.
> 
> IT IS NOT.
> 
> CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, what is this virginal outrage nonsense? Germany invented poison gas; Britain and France quickly followed suit; the United States made so much poison gas of many kinds that we had tons and tons and tons of mustard gas stored up till a couple years ago, not to mention all the other modern stuff we STILL have; and Russia made just as much and is now selling Sarin to these godforsaken Syrians.
> 
> And the Syrians are using it. Well, duh, what do we expect? Everyone else made it, sold it, used it. Why the sudden outrage?
> 
> This genie is out of the bottle and is being used to depopulate enemy strongholds, and it is a weapon well-suited for that, clearly.
> 
> Whatever.   S.E.P., as it says in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Else's Problem.
Click to expand...


            The only thing that is virginal here or I should say ignorant is the idea that somehow Chemical Weapons use is common place. Its  not. This is the first significant chemical Weapons use anywhere on the planet in 25 years. That's a quarter of a century! 

             The use of chemical weapons has essentially been non-existent for the past 25 years until now! The United States went to great lengths to destroy Saddam's chemical stock piles in the 1990s after the first Gulf War and returned to finish the job after Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998.

              The Chemical Weapons convention was signed in 1997 banning their production and use! There was no reason to sign that if were totally unwilling to enforce it. 

            Were you outraged that the United States signed that document back in 1997?


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.
> 
> It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.
> 
> Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.
> 
> They won't.
> 
> It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.




               It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?


----------



## Kondor3

U2Edge said:


> "...A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future..."



Au contraire. It was an elegant, simple outline of the present state of affairs. It made no attempt to project into the future, nor was it designed to. Less is more.



> "..._If chemical weapons start to be come seen as normal, then their possession and use will spread. The threat and consequences or that of PROLIFERATION!_..."



We can pick and choose which brawls to engage in, and there is no immediate and compelling reason for us to engage on this one.

We have spent far too much blood and treasure in the past 68 years since 1945, on ventures designed to prevent "What-If" scenarios.

Our track record with a Crystal Ball is not the best.

And we're dealing with a War-Weary Nation and an Empty Treasury that has been fighting Bad Guys for 12 years now.

Let somebody else play Guardian of Tomorrow-Land for once.

We've done our bit for King and Country for a while, so-to-speak.

This does not mean that we would be disengaging, globally.

This merely says that we choose not to play Policeman on this particular incident.



> "...But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it..."



God knows what those Whack-A-Doodles in Congress are going to say.

But Smart Vegas Money is on them saying "No - do not strike."

And IF they do, and the Administration goes ahead with it anyway, well, there's going to be Hell to pay on the political front, so, I really do believe that, if Congress says "No" - that's it.

We will know soon enough if it is going to play-out that way.

I'm not putting much stock in Crystal Balls, either way, right about now.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming out of nowhere with thousands of times greater armament than Syria and interjecting ourselves is pretty much begging for CW to be used. Many countries have CW, and the U.S. recklessly fighting all these small countries will produce just that. It has been shown that the leadership will be executed when we conquer them, so what do they have to lose by using CW?
Click to expand...


               Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and we'll be doing exactly that by not responding!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming out of nowhere with thousands of times greater armament than Syria and interjecting ourselves is pretty much begging for CW to be used. Many countries have CW, and the U.S. recklessly fighting all these small countries will produce just that. It has been shown that the leadership will be executed when we conquer them, so what do they have to lose by using CW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.
Click to expand...


The point is Assad feels threatened, and rightfully so, since it doesn't take much to overthrow any country including our own, if there is a foreign power making it happen. We are supplying the rebels, and that's all it takes.


----------



## Katzndogz

obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.

The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.


----------



## U2Edge

Kondor3 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire. It was an elegant, simple outline of the present state of affairs. It made no attempt to project into the future, nor was it designed to. Less is more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._If chemical weapons start to be come seen as normal, then their possession and use will spread. The threat and consequences or that of PROLIFERATION!_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can pick and choose which brawls to engage in, and there is no immediate and compelling reason for us to engage on this one.
> 
> We have spent far too much blood and treasure in the past 68 years since 1945, on ventures designed to prevent "What-If" scenarios.
> 
> Our track record with a Crystal Ball is not the best.
> 
> And we're dealing with a War-Weary Nation and an Empty Treasury that has been fighting Bad Guys for 12 years now.
> 
> Let somebody else play Guardian of Tomorrow-Land for once.
> 
> We've done our bit for King and Country for a while, so-to-speak.
> 
> This does not mean that we would be disengaging, globally.
> 
> This merely says that we choose not to play Policeman on this particular incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God knows what those Whack-A-Doodles in Congress are going to say.
> 
> But Smart Vegas Money is on them saying "No - do not strike."
> 
> And IF they do, and the Administration goes ahead with it anyway, well, there's going to be Hell to pay on the political front, so, I really do believe that, if Congress says "No" - that's it.
> 
> We will know soon enough if it is going to play-out that way.
> 
> I'm not putting much stock in Crystal Balls, either way, right about now.
Click to expand...


          The United States engages in the world to protect its interest! To protect its security. A US missile strike against Syria is first and for-most for United States security, not anyone elses.

          The fact of the matter is, US engagement over the past 70 years prevented Soviet communisms attempts to take over the world and prevented World War III. It made the world a stronger, more prosperous and more stable place. American values, capitalism and government have spread across the world. It has been very good for the United States, the best time in its history!

          Finally, the United States CAN NEVER AFFORD NOT TO PROTECT its security!


----------



## U2Edge

Katzndogz said:


> obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.
> 
> The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.



             Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...A rather simplistic appraisal of the situation that fails to see the consequences for the future..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire. It was an elegant, simple outline of the present state of affairs. It made no attempt to project into the future, nor was it designed to. Less is more.
> 
> 
> 
> We can pick and choose which brawls to engage in, and there is no immediate and compelling reason for us to engage on this one.
> 
> We have spent far too much blood and treasure in the past 68 years since 1945, on ventures designed to prevent "What-If" scenarios.
> 
> Our track record with a Crystal Ball is not the best.
> 
> And we're dealing with a War-Weary Nation and an Empty Treasury that has been fighting Bad Guys for 12 years now.
> 
> Let somebody else play Guardian of Tomorrow-Land for once.
> 
> We've done our bit for King and Country for a while, so-to-speak.
> 
> This does not mean that we would be disengaging, globally.
> 
> This merely says that we choose not to play Policeman on this particular incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...But don't worry, the missile strike is going to happen despite your opposition to it..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God knows what those Whack-A-Doodles in Congress are going to say.
> 
> But Smart Vegas Money is on them saying "No - do not strike."
> 
> And IF they do, and the Administration goes ahead with it anyway, well, there's going to be Hell to pay on the political front, so, I really do believe that, if Congress says "No" - that's it.
> 
> We will know soon enough if it is going to play-out that way.
> 
> I'm not putting much stock in Crystal Balls, either way, right about now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States engages in the world to protect its interest! To protect its security. A US missile strike against Syria is first and for-most for United States security, not anyone elses.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, US engagement over the past 70 years prevented Soviet communisms attempts to take over the world and prevented World War III. It made the world a stronger, more prosperous and more stable place. American values, capitalism and government have spread across the world. It has been very good for the United States, the best time in its history!
> 
> Finally, the United States CAN NEVER AFFORD NOT TO PROTECT its security!
Click to expand...


Can't you see that now things are or are about to spiral out of control or at least the possibility?


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.



You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you? 

You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.

Hopefully nothing. 

You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.

You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended. 

Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??

No.

None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.


----------



## Kondor3

My own hoped-for prediction?

Congress will say "No".

We will stand down.

The whole thing blows over.

And we continue to refrain from engaging in combat, in the Syrian civil war.

----------

I could very well be wrong.

But, if I had to come down on one side or the other, in interpreting the cloudy interior of the crystal ball...

That would be my interpretation...

And, if that *does* materialize, we'll all get-by just fine, for not having done it...


----------



## Circe

Katzndogz said:


> obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.
> 
> The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.




I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS! 

At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.

Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing? 

I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.


----------



## Lipush

deltex1 said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there something in the middle, between Yay and Nay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybay.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

Since no one is talking about the U.S. going to war with Syria, the pretense of this poll is bogus.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

orogenicman said:


> Since no one is talking about the U.S. going to war with Syria, the pretense of this poll is bogus.



As Obama pushes to punish Syria, lawmakers fear deep U.S. involvement | Reuters



> President Barack Obama and his aides pressed U.S. lawmakers on Monday to approve military force against Syria but many members of Congress were worried that an attack would only drag America into another Middle Eastern conflict with no end in sight. ...



Obama's proposal to congress asks for unlimited action to achieve the goals. Someone posted it earlier.


----------



## Kondor3

orogenicman said:


> Since no one is talking about the U.S. going to war with Syria, the pretense of this poll is bogus.


This same objection has been covered time-and-again within the past 50-or-so video pages...

Given any knowledge whatsoever of current events, and given any flexibility whatsoever in comprehension of what constitutes 'war'...

Generally speaking, the audience here seems content to leave the original tag-line intact...

War, in this context, means any war-like activity, military intervention, etc; all of which constitute an Act of War against a foreign and sovereign power...

My suggestion... think of the tagline as "Military Intervention - Yes or No?" - if that will make the thing go more smoothly for you.

Or not...


----------



## Katzndogz

U2Edge said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.
> 
> The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!
Click to expand...


Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday.   There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent.  Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of.   They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert.  Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.

Democrats need to be destroyed.  Now and for the foreseeable future.   Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years.  Who knows, we might actually have a border!


----------



## Vox

Circe said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it is not.
> 
> it is our business when it is OUR INTEREST.
> 
> IT IS NOT.
> 
> CW has been used by Assad numerous times before and others too - we were silent then, we can be silent now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, what is this virginal outrage nonsense? Germany invented poison gas; Britain and France quickly followed suit; the United States made so much poison gas of many kinds that we had tons and tons and tons of mustard gas stored up till a couple years ago, not to mention all the other modern stuff we STILL have; and Russia made just as much and is now selling Sarin to these godforsaken Syrians.
> 
> And the Syrians are using it. Well, duh, what do we expect? Everyone else made it, sold it, used it. Why the sudden outrage?
> 
> This genie is out of the bottle and is being used to depopulate enemy strongholds, and it is a weapon well-suited for that, clearly.
> 
> Whatever.   S.E.P.,* as it says in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Else's Problem*.
Click to expand...


yep.

definitely NOT OURS


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.
> 
> It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.
> 
> Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.
> 
> They won't.
> 
> It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?
Click to expand...


NO, it is not.

everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
starting with fall of the USSR.
Then - with Saddam's fall.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.
> 
> The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!
> 
> At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.
> 
> Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?
> 
> I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.
Click to expand...


Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.

           Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.

            All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.

           In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.

           Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.

Success in both cases!


----------



## U2Edge

Vox said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chemical weapons use IS okay. For them.
> 
> It was okay in WWI, it wasn't used in WWII, but voluntarily, and it's been used several times internally by various dictators who buy it from Russia.
> 
> Hey, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs, what is really the problem here? At least it's a cleaner death than blowing people up with bombs. These are our enemies. This is good. Let Allah sort it out, as Sarah Palin cleverly said. If Allah doesn't approve, no doubt Allah will stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> They try to use it on us, we'll nuke 'em.
> 
> They won't.
> 
> It's just not a problem. At least, it's not our problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it is not.
> 
> everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
> starting with fall of the USSR.
> Then - with Saddam's fall.
Click to expand...


       This does not involve the USSR. Were not talking about nuclear weapons. Were talking about chemical weapons, specifically the use of chemical weapons. Using them is a violation of the chemical weapons convention that we agreed to enforce in 1997.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.
> 
> The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!
> 
> At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.
> 
> Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?
> 
> I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.
> 
> Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.
> 
> All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.
> 
> In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.
> 
> Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.
> 
> Success in both cases!
Click to expand...


You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Katzndogz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama's limited strike is supposed to last 24 hours and launch 200 missiles over 50 targets.
> 
> The best outcome for only US interests, is for this to escalate into a large regional war completely exploding in obama's face.  That would be the end of any effective obama regime during the remainder of his term, if he lasts that long,  and likely end democrat expansion for generations to come.  That's best for American interests, just no so good for anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday.   There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent.  Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of.   They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert.  Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.
> 
> Democrats need to be destroyed.  Now and for the foreseeable future.   Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years.  Who knows, we might actually have a border!
Click to expand...


If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it is not.
> 
> everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
> starting with fall of the USSR.
> Then - with Saddam's fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This does not involve the USSR. Were not talking about nuclear weapons. Were talking about chemical weapons, specifically the use of chemical weapons. Using them is a violation of the chemical weapons convention that we agreed to enforce in 1997.
Click to expand...


Self cleansing.. I support that

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but if you really want to put the Republicans back in the white house then you need a Republican party that is willing to embrace the concerns and issues of Americans of latin American descent. They are the future of the country and will be decisive factor in future elections!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday.   There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent.  Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of.   They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert.  Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.
> 
> Democrats need to be destroyed.  Now and for the foreseeable future.   Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years.  Who knows, we might actually have a border!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!
Click to expand...


How about Africa, they get American after their name so are they more American than an Irish immigrant?

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I knew where people were getting these NUMBERS!
> 
> At least you didn't say 300 cruise missiles, like that other guy keeps pulling out of the air.
> 
> Well, I agree a big war with Iran and everyone else around there would be even worse for Obama than Bush's failed wars were for him, but I'd just as soon give it all a miss! I mean, darn, could be a problem for the American citizen. How much more of these disasters can we really afford without collapsing?
> 
> I'd say we're about at minus one now. Let's don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.
> 
> Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.
> 
> All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.
> 
> In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.
> 
> Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.
> 
> Success in both cases!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks. 

       Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!

         If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes lets abandon the majority for 15% of the people who might be the majority someday.   There are very FEW Americans of latin Americn descent.  Mostly they are still Mexicans, el Salvadorans, guatamalans and where ever else they slithered out of.   They are just going to have to wait for the future to exert the kind of control they want to exert.  Then they can fight it out with blacks and Chinese.
> 
> Democrats need to be destroyed.  Now and for the foreseeable future.   Then we won't have to think about handing the country over to mexico for a good many years.  Who knows, we might actually have a border!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about Africa, they get American after their name so are they more American than an Irish immigrant?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Irish American, African American, Russian American, were all American citizens.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one is born in this country or became a citizen of this country, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. Irish descent does not make you any more American than if you Great Grand parents came from Brazil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about Africa, they get American after their name so are they more American than an Irish immigrant?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irish American, African American, Russian American, were all American citizens.
Click to expand...


Let me repeat the question, since African descent people get 'American' after their heritage name, does that make them more American than other cultures that do not?

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Failed wars? Bush did not fail at any of the wars he launched. Iraq invaded in 2003 and Saddam successfully removed and captured in 2003.
> 
> Are man Maliki installed as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006 and still prime minister of Iraq in 2013.
> 
> All US troops leave in 2011. Today Iraq manages its own security problems and no longer poses a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia like it did when Saddam was in power.
> 
> In Afghanistan, Taliban removed from power in 2001. Rebuilding of Afghanistan and Afghanistan military from 2002 to the 2013. US force to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, with 300,000 Afghan police and military taken their places. Taliban still out of power, Al Quada decimated and Usama Bin Ladin dead.
> 
> Two enemy governments removed replaced by US aided/installed governments.
> 
> Success in both cases!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.
> 
> Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!
> 
> If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!
Click to expand...


Why did the U.S. Fail in Afghanistan? | Stephen M. Walt

Why did the U.S. fail in Afghanistan? (I know we are pretending to have succeeded, but that's just camouflage to disguise what is in fact an embarrassing if predictable defeat). The reasons for our failure are now being debated by people like Vali Nasr and Sarah Chayes, who have offered contrasting insider accounts of what went wrong. 

Both Nasr and Chayes make useful points about the dysfunction that undermined the AfPak effort, and I'm not going to try to adjudicate between them. Rather, I think both of them miss the more fundamental contradiction that bedeviled the entire U.S./NATO effort, especially after the diversion to Iraq allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. The key problem was essentially structural: US. objectives in Afghanistan could not be achieved without a much larger commitment of resources, but the stakes there simply weren't worth that level of commitment. In other words, winning wasn't worth the effort it would have taken, and the real failure was not to recognize that fact much earlier and to draw the appropriate policy conclusions.

First, achieving a meaningful victory in Afghanistan -- defined as defeating the Taliban and creating an effective, Western-style government in Kabul -- would have required sending far more troops (i.e., even more than the Army requested during the "surge"). Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached the ratio of troops/population observed in more successful instances of nation-building, and that deficiency was compounded by Afghanistan's ethnic divisions, mountainous terrain, geographic isolation, poor infrastructure, and porous borders.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
Click to expand...


United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.

               There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours. 

            I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message. 

           I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because Assad can't afford to have continued US military strikes against his military when its struggling to fight the rebels in his country. Assad stops Chemical weapon use, no more US military strikes. Mission accomplished and Assad continues to fight his war with just conventional weapons like he has done for most of the past 2 and half years.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Asaad has used chemical weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everywhere! Take a look for yourself:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GPTqxf8rE&bpctr=1378150074]Syria chemical weapons - Sarin gas attack near Damascus? - Truthloader - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> A very broad area was hit, too broad an area and concentration levels too great for it to have been rebels with their limited delivery means!
Click to expand...

Where's your link for the above opinion?
It's at least as likely the latest "attack" in Ghouta was due to rebels mishandling neurotoxins supplied by Bandar Bush.

Mint Press News | Independent advocacy journalism. Thought-provoking political analysis.

How would your opinion of this situation change if the UN comes to the conclusion that BOTH sides have used chemical weapons in this conflict?


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
Click to expand...


Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated 

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Afghanistan is a success? GMAB
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.
> 
> Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!
> 
> If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the U.S. Fail in Afghanistan? | Stephen M. Walt
> 
> Why did the U.S. fail in Afghanistan? (I know we are pretending to have succeeded, but that's just camouflage to disguise what is in fact an embarrassing if predictable defeat). The reasons for our failure are now being debated by people like Vali Nasr and Sarah Chayes, who have offered contrasting insider accounts of what went wrong.
> 
> Both Nasr and Chayes make useful points about the dysfunction that undermined the AfPak effort, and I'm not going to try to adjudicate between them. Rather, I think both of them miss the more fundamental contradiction that bedeviled the entire U.S./NATO effort, especially after the diversion to Iraq allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. The key problem was essentially structural: US. objectives in Afghanistan could not be achieved without a much larger commitment of resources, but the stakes there simply weren't worth that level of commitment. In other words, winning wasn't worth the effort it would have taken, and the real failure was not to recognize that fact much earlier and to draw the appropriate policy conclusions.
> 
> First, achieving a meaningful victory in Afghanistan -- defined as defeating the Taliban and creating an effective, Western-style government in Kabul -- would have required sending far more troops (i.e., even more than the Army requested during the "surge"). Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached the ratio of troops/population observed in more successful instances of nation-building, and that deficiency was compounded by Afghanistan's ethnic divisions, mountainous terrain, geographic isolation, poor infrastructure, and porous borders.
Click to expand...


         The Taliban has essentially been defeated. Just because they pop out from time the time to make attacks is no victory at all. Just because the IRA remained in existence in Northern Ireland for 40 years does not change the fact that the British remained in charge just as the Afghan Government and not the Taliban remains in charge of the capital and every provincial capital through out the country. 

          There were people who wanted the mission to fail because they did not believe it was necessary or could succeed. These are the same people claiming it was a failure which it wasn't.

          FACT: The US installed government remains the government of Afghanistan. If and Until the Taliban remove that government the United States has succeeded.

          FACT: The Soviet Union's effort failed because the the government they installed was overthrown in 1992!


----------



## TooTall

francoHFW said:


> War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France* and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League*. Some patience.



One out of three is not good enough.  The UK and the Arab League said NO.  I want a YEA vote from the House and the Senate, a UN resolution and 47 other countries like Bush II had to go into Iraq?


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> By far the most successful occupation of Afghanistan ever in history. The US installed government controls the capital of the country as well as all the 30 or so provincial capitals around the country. The Taliban spends most of its time hiding occasionally stepping out to launch sneak attacks.
> 
> Afghanistan has made more progress in human development since the year 2000 than any other country on the planet according to statistics on wealth, health and education!
> 
> If the United States still had yet to take Kabul or Kandhar from the Taliban like we did in 2001 then obviously that would be a failure. But that is FAR from being the case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the U.S. Fail in Afghanistan? | Stephen M. Walt
> 
> Why did the U.S. fail in Afghanistan? (I know we are pretending to have succeeded, but that's just camouflage to disguise what is in fact an embarrassing if predictable defeat). The reasons for our failure are now being debated by people like Vali Nasr and Sarah Chayes, who have offered contrasting insider accounts of what went wrong.
> 
> Both Nasr and Chayes make useful points about the dysfunction that undermined the AfPak effort, and I'm not going to try to adjudicate between them. Rather, I think both of them miss the more fundamental contradiction that bedeviled the entire U.S./NATO effort, especially after the diversion to Iraq allowed the Taliban to re-emerge. The key problem was essentially structural: US. objectives in Afghanistan could not be achieved without a much larger commitment of resources, but the stakes there simply weren't worth that level of commitment. In other words, winning wasn't worth the effort it would have taken, and the real failure was not to recognize that fact much earlier and to draw the appropriate policy conclusions.
> 
> First, achieving a meaningful victory in Afghanistan -- defined as defeating the Taliban and creating an effective, Western-style government in Kabul -- would have required sending far more troops (i.e., even more than the Army requested during the "surge"). Troop levels in Afghanistan never approached the ratio of troops/population observed in more successful instances of nation-building, and that deficiency was compounded by Afghanistan's ethnic divisions, mountainous terrain, geographic isolation, poor infrastructure, and porous borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Taliban has essentially been defeated. Just because they pop out from time the time to make attacks is no victory at all. Just because the IRA remained in existence in Northern Ireland for 40 years does not change the fact that the British remained in charge just as the Afghan Government and not the Taliban remains in charge of the capital and every provincial capital through out the country.
> 
> There were people who wanted the mission to fail because they did not believe it was necessary or could succeed. These are the same people claiming it was a failure which it wasn't.
> 
> FACT: The US installed government remains the government of Afghanistan. If and Until the Taliban remove that government the United States has succeeded.
> 
> FACT: The Soviet Union's effort failed because the the government they installed was overthrown in 1992!
Click to expand...


More from the link I posted

-Geaux

In short, the U.S. was destined to lose because it didn't go all-out to win, and it shouldn't have. Indeed, an all-out effort would have been a huge mistake, because the stakes were in fact rather modest. Once the Taliban had been ousted and al Qaeda had been scattered, America's main interest was continuing to degrade al Qaeda (as we have done). That mission was distinct from the attempt to nation-build in Afghanistan, and in the end Afghanistan's importance did not justify a substantially larger effort.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
Click to expand...


Once we fire cruise missiles, we are at war with Syria, and there won't be anymore hurtles to negotiate. To cross that line is to remove all safeguards and common sense, and we will be at the total mercy of Obama's whims and wants, which are well-known. Think ahead and look at how hopeless the debate will be then.


----------



## Geaux4it

More facts.....

Obama's Failures in Afghanistan - Reason.com

Only U.S. Gen. Joseph &#8220;Fighting Joe&#8221; Dunford, head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) thinks the war on the Taliban is being won, and that the Afghan Army is &#8220;steadily gaining in confidence, competence, and commitment.&#8221;Attacks by the Taliban are up 47 percent over last year, and the casualty rate for Afghan soldiers and police has increased 40 percent. The yearly desertion rate of the Afghan Army is between 27 percent and 30 percent.

Things have gotten so bad, Hallinan writes, that gunman in Pakistan burned a NATO convoy taking equipment out of Afghanistan. He comments,

There is nothing that better sums up the utter failure of America&#8217;s longest war than international forces getting ambushed as they try to get the hell out of the country. And yet the April 1 debacle in Baluchistan was in many ways a metaphor for a looming crisis that NATO and the United States seem totally unprepared for: with the clock ticking down on removing most combat troops by 2014, there are no official negotiations going on, nor does there seem to be any strategy for how to bring them about.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


             The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons. 

             Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL

           Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month. 

            Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels. 

            In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.


----------



## Contumacious

U2Edge said:


> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> .



Are you 

a zionut
war profiteer
a retard?

.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.
> 
> In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.
Click to expand...


Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?

-Geaux


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> *Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect* whether its launched next week or next month.



Which is exactly what?


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> More facts.....
> 
> Obama's Failures in Afghanistan - Reason.com
> 
> Only U.S. Gen. Joseph Fighting Joe Dunford, head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) thinks the war on the Taliban is being won, and that the Afghan Army is steadily gaining in confidence, competence, and commitment.Attacks by the Taliban are up 47 percent over last year, and the casualty rate for Afghan soldiers and police has increased 40 percent. The yearly desertion rate of the Afghan Army is between 27 percent and 30 percent.
> 
> Things have gotten so bad, Hallinan writes, that gunman in Pakistan burned a NATO convoy taking equipment out of Afghanistan. He comments,
> 
> There is nothing that better sums up the utter failure of Americas longest war than international forces getting ambushed as they try to get the hell out of the country. And yet the April 1 debacle in Baluchistan was in many ways a metaphor for a looming crisis that NATO and the United States seem totally unprepared for: with the clock ticking down on removing most combat troops by 2014, there are no official negotiations going on, nor does there seem to be any strategy for how to bring them about.



        How many provincial capitals in Afghanistan are under the control of the Taliban? NONE

         Timothy McVieh blows up Ryder Truck in Oklahoma city, does that mean the Oklahoma City police force is non-existent or a failure. 

          10,000 US citizens are murdered every year, does that mean the US law enforcement is a failure and people should consider moving to a different country?

            Yes, some trucks moving through Pakistan were burned. Any teenager in the United States could do the same thing here and there. Point being, that's  not evidence of NATO failure or Taliban success.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> *Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect* whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what?
Click to expand...


      To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Syria is already being devastated. How will a number of cruise missiles make any difference, U2?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> *Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect* whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...


It is also just as likely to force him into using CW, since he will have nothing to lose facing certain death.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are cruise missile strikes. The US declaring war with Syria is not in our best interest. Plus, we have telegraphed our move beyond anything imaginable so the effectiveness of any value that may have been accomplished otherwise has been negated
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.
> 
> In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


            It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war. 

           Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger. 

           Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.
> 
> In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
Click to expand...


Yea, not always, but in this case it surely is with the statement of the red line and our supplying of the rebels.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also just as likely to force him into using CW, since he will have nothing to lose facing certain death.
Click to expand...


Assad is not facing death or injury and will still be able to prosecute his war against the rebels after the strike is over. He might lose his favorite bubble bath in one of his palaces, but I doubt that will make him think its the end of the world. 

           Assad will still have several other places in which he can take luxury baths with his wife!


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a serious problem, that involves the idea of PROLIFERATION. Do you know what PROLIFERATION is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it is not.
> 
> everything what was able to proliferate - already DID.
> starting with fall of the USSR.
> Then - with Saddam's fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This does not involve the USSR. Were not talking about nuclear weapons. Were talking about chemical weapons, specifically the use of chemical weapons. Using them is a violation of the chemical weapons convention that we agreed to enforce in 1997.
Click to expand...



it does involve the USSR - everything what was being able to be sold after it's collapse - WAS.
CW as well.

upgrade your knowledge a bit, because your zeal to missile strike Syria and in order to do that you negate the well known worldwide facts, obviously interferes with the simple knowledge base.


----------



## Contumacious

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.
> 
> In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> ?
Click to expand...



Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.

. The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging  a civil war. 

.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, not always, but in this case it surely is with the statement of the red line and our supplying of the rebels.
Click to expand...


        When Assad reacts the same way to the US missile strike the way he acted to the three previous Israeli air strikes this year, you will see what I mean.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Syria is already being devastated. How will a number of cruise missiles make any difference, U2?



              The Syrian military has large number of important military assets that are intact an important in their plans for fighting the rebels. The loss of some of these assets will deter them from ever using chemical weapons again.


----------



## TooTall

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we SHOULD do a thing...
> 
> At present, my own feelings about this are...
> 
> Let 'em rot... let 'em go on killing each other... let 'em have a field day... let the Euros handle it for once... it's their backyard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have mentioned this elsewhere but:
> 
> And here we have all the myopic, spineless, irresponsible isolationists indulging in the easy refrain of "fuck it, it's not our problem!" Some of y'all must have the memory of a goldfish not to recall what tends to happen when we turn our backs, ignore or avoid problems and let them stew, or count on (of all people) the Europeans to "handle it."
> 
> Half-assing it doesn't cut it either. Clinton lobbing a few missiles into some sand or at a baby food factory - or saying "Who's this Bin Laden fellow? No thanks, you keep him" - didn't solve a problem that came back to bite us in the ass. Obama making some empty declarations well after the moment had passed didn't do jack shit for brave Iranians demanding democracy who were gunned down in the street. "Leading from behind" leaves us exactly there, but when the shit hits the fan - and it inevitably does - all those leading in the front will climb all over each other to scurry behind us as they both demand that we act and vilify us for it at the same time.
> 
> We are a world leader - the world leader - whether some of you like it or not. A lot of you should have thought of this before electing - twice! - an incompetent, dithering, unqualified one term senator to be Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...


Totally agree!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also just as likely to force him into using CW, since he will have nothing to lose facing certain death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assad is not facing death or injury and will still be able to prosecute his war against the rebels after the strike is over. He might lose his favorite bubble bath in one of his palaces, but I doubt that will make him think its the end of the world.
> 
> Assad will still have several other places in which he can take luxury baths with his wife!
Click to expand...


After Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Khadafy and numerous Al Qaeda leaders, Assad will not take these kind of reassurances as any kind of comfort whatsoever.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.
> 
> In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.
> 
> Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?
Click to expand...


I don't care about Israel. I'm talking about the United States and Syria. YOu are wrong big time if you think we would stand by and let another country fires missiles into US soil and not consider it an act of war

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Contumacious said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.
> 
> . The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging  a civil war.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, not always, but in this case it surely is with the statement of the red line and our supplying of the rebels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Assad reacts the same way to the US missile strike the way he acted to the three previous Israeli air strikes this year, you will see what I mean.
Click to expand...


Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> Syria is in the middle of a war remember. Their troops and equipment still have to be deployed to meet the rebel enemy, otherwise they lose ground to the rebels.
> 
> In fact, the weapon systems that they have chosen to hide inside schools are now no longer being used on the battlefield. So the strike has not even happened yet, but its already causing Assad problems and giving the Rebels and advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.
> 
> Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?
Click to expand...



Ever been to Israel? I have been. Numerous times. Israel is in a perpetual "state of war". Might have something to do with the fact that he entire Middle East wants them destroyed. 

From your above posts, it's relatively easy to understand your stand on Israel and that's your business. However, Israel is not a player in this latest fray. The US is. Let's stick to the "crisis" at hand, shall we? You know,  the one Barry has involved us in?

Or, are you merely looking for a scapegoat for Barry?


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.
> 
> Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about Israel. I'm talking about the United States and Syria. YOu are wrong big time if you think we would stand by and let another country fires missiles into US soil and not consider it an act of war
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


           Well we are talking about Syria and how they would react. They didn't lift a finger after Israel attacked them three times this year, or as you would put it, went to war with Syria three times this year. 

              A year from now, I doubt Syrians will even remember the US missile strike much less refer to it as a "war"!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria is already being devastated. How will a number of cruise missiles make any difference, U2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Syrian military has large number of important military assets that are intact an important in their plans for fighting the rebels. The loss of some of these assets will deter them from ever using chemical weapons again.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is that a single cruise missile strike will win the Civil War for the rebels. So how again is our action not making war with Syria?


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.
> 
> Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care about Israel. I'm talking about the United States and Syria. YOu are wrong big time if you think we would stand by and let another country fires missiles into US soil and not consider it an act of war
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we are talking about Syria and how they would react. They didn't lift a finger after Israel attacked them three times this year, or as you would put it, went to war with Syria three times this year.
> 
> A year from now, I doubt Syrians will even remember the US missile strike much less refer to it as a "war"!
Click to expand...


Then what's the point in doing it?

BTW- War as defined

Definition of WAR

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
c : variance, odds 3


----------



## Baron

If Obama likes war, than he should go alone and fight.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this. If another country launched missiles into the United States, you would not consider it an act of war? You think our Government would not think it was an act of war?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.
> 
> Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ever been to Israel? I have been. Numerous times. Israel is in a perpetual "state of war". Might have something to do with the fact that he entire Middle East wants them destroyed.
> 
> From your above posts, it's relatively easy to understand your stand on Israel and that's your business. However, Israel is not a player in this latest fray. The US is. Let's stick to the "crisis" at hand, shall we? You know,  the one Barry has involved us in?
> 
> Or, are you merely looking for a scapegoat for Barry?
Click to expand...


Barry is not my man, I never voted for him and actively campaigned against him in each election. 

            Assad did not respond to the Israely strikes because it would have been a waste of his time and resourses given what he is dealing with. The same will be true of the US missile strike.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> Otherwise, Israel has gone to war three times this year with Syria, yet Syria did not even so much as give them the middle finger.
> 
> Do you think Israel has gone to war three different times with Syria this year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care about Israel. I'm talking about the United States and Syria. YOu are wrong big time if you think we would stand by and let another country fires missiles into US soil and not consider it an act of war
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we are talking about Syria and how they would react. They didn't lift a finger after Israel attacked them three times this year, or as you would put it, went to war with Syria three times this year.
> 
> A year from now, I doubt Syrians will even remember the US missile strike much less refer to it as a "war"!
Click to expand...


Yea, because most of them will be dying in refugee camps.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.
> 
> . The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging  a civil war.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.
Click to expand...


As a person who spent YEARS in Embassies across the world, your naïveté impresses me. HUNDREDS of bombs (RPG, Tank Rounds, Arty Rounds, small arms fire, AA batteries) are heard everyday in Damascus each day. Yet, you contend that the US targets a couple of mountainsides (where the CBR munitions WERE kept until Barry told Assad we were coming) and you somehow are deluded that Assad will "step back in line".

Lordy, Lordy......


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care about Israel. I'm talking about the United States and Syria. YOu are wrong big time if you think we would stand by and let another country fires missiles into US soil and not consider it an act of war
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we are talking about Syria and how they would react. They didn't lift a finger after Israel attacked them three times this year, or as you would put it, went to war with Syria three times this year.
> 
> A year from now, I doubt Syrians will even remember the US missile strike much less refer to it as a "war"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what's the point in doing it?
> 
> BTW- War as defined
> 
> Definition of WAR
> 
> 1
> a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
> b : the art or science of warfare
> c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
> 2
> a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
> b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
> c : variance, odds 3
Click to expand...


             I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.


----------



## Geaux4it

The bottom line is Obama wants Assad to stay in power. Nothing more, nothing less

-Geaux


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we are talking about Syria and how they would react. They didn't lift a finger after Israel attacked them three times this year, or as you would put it, went to war with Syria three times this year.
> 
> A year from now, I doubt Syrians will even remember the US missile strike much less refer to it as a "war"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's the point in doing it?
> 
> BTW- War as defined
> 
> Definition of WAR
> 
> 1
> a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
> b : the art or science of warfare
> c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
> 2
> a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
> b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
> c : variance, odds 3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the chemical attack was a rationally thought out process?


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we are talking about Syria and how they would react. They didn't lift a finger after Israel attacked them three times this year, or as you would put it, went to war with Syria three times this year.
> 
> A year from now, I doubt Syrians will even remember the US missile strike much less refer to it as a "war"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's the point in doing it?
> 
> BTW- War as defined
> 
> Definition of WAR
> 
> 1
> a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
> b : the art or science of warfare
> c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
> 2
> a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
> b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
> c : variance, odds 3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...


O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue

-Geaux


----------



## Contumacious

U2Edge said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend on the situation and the context. Simply firing a missile into another country is not the same as declaring war.
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.
> 
> . The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging  a civil war.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.
Click to expand...


Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?

Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?

.


----------



## bodecea

I say nay....they will have to do a powerful amount of convincing me.


----------



## Vox

Geaux4it said:


> The bottom line is Obama wants Assad to stay in power. Nothing more, nothing less
> 
> -Geaux



well, as SOB he is, at the moment it is most likely more to the US interests if he stays.

A year ago was a different situation. Maybe.


----------



## bodecea

So...which is it?  President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?


----------



## Hoffstra

Geaux4it said:


> The bottom line is Obama wants Assad to stay in power. Nothing more, nothing less
> 
> -Geaux



Assad is a secular dictator, who has kept the peace with Israel.

the Syrian Rebels include Al Qaeda and other extremists.

not even Israel is sure who is worse.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.
> 
> . The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging  a civil war.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a person who spent YEARS in Embassies across the world, your naïveté impresses me. HUNDREDS of bombs (RPG, Tank Rounds, Arty Rounds, small arms fire, AA batteries) are heard everyday in Damascus each day. Yet, you contend that the US targets a couple of mountainsides (where the CBR munitions WERE kept until Barry told Assad we were coming) and you somehow are deluded that Assad will "step back in line".
> 
> Lordy, Lordy......
Click to expand...


             Sure, and your about to see it all happen. Assad has no interest in fighting the United States or having the US Air Force become the Air Force of the Free Syrian Army. 

              Assad's military struggles daily to keep Damascus free of insurgents and yes yet to make much progress in taking parts of the largest Syrian city Aleppo back. Much of the Syrian military already deserted long ago and the Syrian military is experiencing severe manpower shortages. The Syrian military has more tanks than they have trained tank crew man and more aircraft than they have trained pilots. 

              It is an embarrassment to Assad that he is having to get help from Hezbolah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. He does not have time to do combat with Israel or the United States.

            That's why Russian lawmakers are now in Washington DC on their hands and knees begging US congressman not to authorize the strike.


----------



## Vox

bodecea said:


> So...which is it?  President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?



for the war


----------



## Contumacious

bodecea said:


> So...which is it?  President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?



President Obama is for President Obama and the democratic party.

Making Israhell a superpower will make him a gazillionaire and provide lots of prestige

.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a person who spent YEARS in Embassies across the world, your naïveté impresses me. HUNDREDS of bombs (RPG, Tank Rounds, Arty Rounds, small arms fire, AA batteries) are heard everyday in Damascus each day. Yet, you contend that the US targets a couple of mountainsides (where the CBR munitions WERE kept until Barry told Assad we were coming) and you somehow are deluded that Assad will "step back in line".
> 
> Lordy, Lordy......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and your about to see it all happen. Assad has no interest in fighting the United States or having the US Air Force become the Air Force of the Free Syrian Army.
> 
> Assad's military struggles daily to keep Damascus free of insurgents and yes yet to make much progress in taking parts of the largest Syrian city Aleppo back. Much of the Syrian military already deserted long ago and the Syrian military is experiencing severe manpower shortages. The Syrian military has more tanks than they have trained tank crew man and more aircraft than they have trained pilots.
> 
> It is an embarrassment to Assad that he is having to get help from Hezbolah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. He does not have time to do combat with Israel or the United States.
> 
> That's why Russian lawmakers are now in Washington DC on their hands and knees begging US congressman not to authorize the strike.
Click to expand...


For as inept as Congress is, I think they will get this one right and tell Obama no. It's the right thing to do. The consequences of not acting are far more positive than those for limited action

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, not always, but in this case it surely is with the statement of the red line and our supplying of the rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Assad reacts the same way to the US missile strike the way he acted to the three previous Israeli air strikes this year, you will see what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.
Click to expand...


      Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing. 

         Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Assad reacts the same way to the US missile strike the way he acted to the three previous Israeli air strikes this year, you will see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.
> 
> Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.
Click to expand...


Then why do the missile strike? It changes nothing

-Geaux


----------



## deltex1

It's out of our hands now, friends...let the experts in DC work out the optimum solution.........pause.......LMAO!!!!!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Assad reacts the same way to the US missile strike the way he acted to the three previous Israeli air strikes this year, you will see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.
> 
> Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.
Click to expand...


What could Assad have done?


----------



## U2Edge

Contumacious said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen dildo, its very hard to fight against a foreign power when a nation is involved in a civil war.
> 
> . The CIA and the Mossad have been very very busy encouraging  a civil war.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?
> 
> Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


               That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!


----------



## Geaux4it

deltex1 said:


> It's out of our hands now, friends...let the experts in DC work out the optimum solution.........pause.......LMAO!!!!!


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's the point in doing it?
> 
> BTW- War as defined
> 
> Definition of WAR
> 
> 1
> a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
> b : the art or science of warfare
> c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
> 2
> a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
> b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
> c : variance, odds 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


          Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly. 

          If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.

            You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the reason Assad will do nothing and step back in line after the missile strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?
> 
> Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!
Click to expand...


We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a person who spent YEARS in Embassies across the world, your naïveté impresses me. HUNDREDS of bombs (RPG, Tank Rounds, Arty Rounds, small arms fire, AA batteries) are heard everyday in Damascus each day. Yet, you contend that the US targets a couple of mountainsides (where the CBR munitions WERE kept until Barry told Assad we were coming) and you somehow are deluded that Assad will "step back in line".
> 
> Lordy, Lordy......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and your about to see it all happen. Assad has no interest in fighting the United States or having the US Air Force become the Air Force of the Free Syrian Army.
> 
> Assad's military struggles daily to keep Damascus free of insurgents and yes yet to make much progress in taking parts of the largest Syrian city Aleppo back. Much of the Syrian military already deserted long ago and the Syrian military is experiencing severe manpower shortages. The Syrian military has more tanks than they have trained tank crew man and more aircraft than they have trained pilots.
> 
> It is an embarrassment to Assad that he is having to get help from Hezbolah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. He does not have time to do combat with Israel or the United States.
> 
> That's why Russian lawmakers are now in Washington DC on their hands and knees begging US congressman not to authorize the strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For as inept as Congress is, I think they will get this one right and tell Obama no. It's the right thing to do. The consequences of not acting are far more positive than those for limited action
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


                  We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen asswipe, , will Iran and Lebanon and possibly Russia step back after the missile strike?
> 
> Why don't you use the Star of David as your avatar?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.
Click to expand...


What happened with the Israeli strikes is an indication of what will happen in the future with a US military strike.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.
> 
> If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.
> 
> You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.
Click to expand...


Dude- You have more assumptions than Carter has liver pills

You ever thought why Syria used gas in the first place? Was Assad just checking to see if Obama was bluffing, which he was?

He and his allies want us to attack

-Geaux


----------



## paulitician

Kondor3 said:


> My own hoped-for prediction?
> 
> Congress will say "No".
> 
> We will stand down.
> 
> The whole thing blows over.
> 
> And we continue to refrain from engaging in combat, in the Syrian civil war.
> 
> ----------
> 
> I could very well be wrong.
> 
> But, if I had to come down on one side or the other, in interpreting the cloudy interior of the crystal ball...
> 
> That would be my interpretation...
> 
> And, if that *does* materialize, we'll all get-by just fine, for not having done it...



Yeah that's my hope too. The People don't support it. However, i'm pretty sure Congress will rubber stamp this War. Congress has been a rubber stamp for useless Wars for many many years. They've ceded just about all authority to the President. It would be great to see Congress reassert its authority and vote against this War. But i just don't see that happening. When's the last time you remember Congress voting down any War? So unfortunately, the fix is likely in once again. I would love to be proven wrong though. I guess we'll see.


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Israel has the kind of military force and clout the U.S. has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.
> 
> Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What could Assad have done?
Click to expand...


              Given the size and equipment holdings of his forces prior to the start of the war in March 2011, he could have done a lot. Two and half years later things are different. His forces are depleted and he is struggling for control of Syria with the much larger Sunni population. 

            I would say he still has limited means of hitting Israel with Aircraft and Missiles but would rather save such assets for fighting the rebels. 

            In terms of ground troops, its highly unlikely Assad could put together any sort of  an invasion force of the Golan heights without jeperdizing his control of Damascus and other area's of Syria.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the Syrian people in general. The Syrian government will remember and this will stop them from ever considering the use of chemical weapons again. Mission accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.
> 
> If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.
> 
> You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.
Click to expand...


Now, I need to put myself in Assad's place.


----------



## Kondor3

U2Edge said:


> "..._We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield._"


Nolo contendre.

No contest.

The question now becomes...

*"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?*

The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.

And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.

It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.


----------



## georgephillip

Vox said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...which is it?  President Obama is for Assad or for the Rebels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for the war
Click to expand...

That would be the Long War that Wesley mentioned?

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. 

"'But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, *beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran,* Somalia and Sudan.'" 

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what they did after the Israeli strikes this year!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened with the Israeli strikes is an indication of what will happen in the future with a US military strike.
Click to expand...


Just because Russia hasn't joined in yet doesn't mean they won't. Do you know what a war with Russia would mean? I fully expect you won't answer this.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assad would be more confident about his ability to handle Israel than the United States. Yet, when Israel hit him this year, he did nothing.
> 
> Assad won't do anything after the missile strike because he has more important things to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could Assad have done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the size and equipment holdings of his forces prior to the start of the war in March 2011, *he could have done a lot*. Two and half years later things are different. His forces are depleted and he is struggling for control of Syria with the much larger Sunni population.
> 
> I would say he still has limited means of hitting Israel with Aircraft and Missiles but would rather save such assets for fighting the rebels.
> 
> In terms of ground troops, its highly unlikely Assad could put together any sort of  an invasion force of the Golan heights without jeperdizing his control of Damascus and other area's of Syria.
Click to expand...


What a great answer to my question.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> O h really, I suspect he will gas even more than last time. Might even lob a few towards Israel. He will not let the Americans declaring war stand. And we best hope Russia does not take issue
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.
> 
> If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.
> 
> You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude- You have more assumptions than Carter has liver pills
> 
> You ever thought why Syria used gas in the first place? Was Assad just checking to see if Obama was bluffing, which he was?
> 
> He and his allies want us to attack
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


                Well, at least my assumptions are based on the facts on the ground in Syria and what Assad has already demonstrated what he is willing to do and not do. 

                He could strike back at Israel, but he didn't because he has more important things to use his military assets for. 

                Syria used Gas because its away to successfully speed up Syrian success and taken of ground from the rebels and his less costly in casualties for the Syrian military. Its a cheap, easy, quick way to make dramatic gains on the battlefield. 

                 They did very limited testing in the Spring, so limited that people question if chemicals were even used and whether it was the rebels who used them. 

                 Obama did nothing. That led to the attack on August 21. The Syrians miscalculated and thought they could get away with a much larger attack.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is NOT declaring war. It is launching a punishing deterent strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Well, then if the Cruise missile strike has been negated by telegraphing it so early, why are the Syrians and Russians so worried. LOL
> 
> *Fact is, the strike will have the intended effect* whether its launched next week or next month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...

When are you planning to provide proof that Assad used chemical weapons?
About the same time hasbara finds WMDs in Fallujah?


----------



## U2Edge

QuickHitCurepon said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about the future, and you are avoiding the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened with the Israeli strikes is an indication of what will happen in the future with a US military strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because Russia hasn't joined in yet doesn't mean they won't. Do you know what a war with Russia would mean? I fully expect you won't answer this.
Click to expand...


           The Soviet Union/Russia loves its client states like Saddam's Iraq, Milosvic's Serbia and Assad's Syria, but they are not willing to go to war with the United States to save them. 

            Putins beggers are Washington DC already. Warships in the mediteranian and begging lawmakers in Washington DC as well as supplying Assad with more conventional weapons as all that Putin is will to do in terms of going up to bat for Syria.


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When are you planning to provide proof that Assad used chemical weapons?
> About the same time hasbara finds WMDs in Fallujah?
Click to expand...


I already did. That ship already sailed a long time ago.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deter Assad from using Chemical Weapons ever again and to reinforce the worldwide prohibition against the use of chemical weapons anywhere at anytime.
> 
> 
> 
> When are you planning to provide proof that Assad used chemical weapons?
> About the same time hasbara finds WMDs in Fallujah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did. That ship already sailed a long time ago.
Click to expand...

" Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack..."

"They didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them, complained a female fighter named K. We didnt know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.

When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them, she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named J agreed. Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material, he said.

We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions, J said."

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

*Bandar Bush did it (again)*


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

U2Edge said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened with the Israeli strikes is an indication of what will happen in the future with a US military strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Russia hasn't joined in yet doesn't mean they won't. Do you know what a war with Russia would mean? I fully expect you won't answer this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union/Russia loves its client states like Saddam's Iraq, Milosvic's Serbia and Assad's Syria, but they are not willing to go to war with the United States to save them.
> 
> Putins beggers are Washington DC already. Warships in the mediteranian and begging lawmakers in Washington DC as well as supplying Assad with more conventional weapons as all that Putin is will to do in terms of going up to bat for Syria.
Click to expand...


Like I said, you didn't answer my question and didn't give any indication that you are doing anything but copy/pasting.


----------



## U2Edge

Kondor3 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield._"
> 
> 
> 
> Nolo contendre.
> 
> No contest.
> 
> The question now becomes...
> 
> *"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?*
> 
> The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.
> 
> And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.
> 
> It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.
Click to expand...


               Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.

               The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997. 

                The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.


----------



## paulitician

U2Edge said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield._"
> 
> 
> 
> Nolo contendre.
> 
> No contest.
> 
> The question now becomes...
> 
> *"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?*
> 
> The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.
> 
> And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.
> 
> It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
Click to expand...


With friends like those, who needs enemies? Yikes! And there are no interests to protect. Lets sit this one out.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, be prepared to be proven wrong when that doesn't happen. Assad does not need Gas to win his war. It certainly would be easier and quicker to win it with Gas, but he can still win it without gas. It will just take longer and be more costly.
> 
> If using Gas, means US airstrikes, then there is no advantage to him using gas. He'll go back to making slower gains on the battlefield with conventional war fighting because that does not bring on US airstrikes.
> 
> You would do the same if you were in Assads position as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- You have more assumptions than Carter has liver pills
> 
> You ever thought why Syria used gas in the first place? Was Assad just checking to see if Obama was bluffing, which he was?
> 
> He and his allies want us to attack
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least my assumptions are based on the facts on the ground in Syria and what Assad has already demonstrated what he is willing to do and not do.
> 
> He could strike back at Israel, but he didn't because he has more important things to use his military assets for.
> 
> Syria used Gas because its away to successfully speed up Syrian success and taken of ground from the rebels and his less costly in casualties for the Syrian military. Its a cheap, easy, quick way to make dramatic gains on the battlefield.
> 
> They did very limited testing in the Spring, so limited that people question if chemicals were even used and whether it was the rebels who used them.
> 
> Obama did nothing. That led to the attack on August 21. The Syrians miscalculated and thought they could get away with a much larger attack.
Click to expand...

Except you've still provided no evidence the Syrian government was responsible:

*"Saudi involvement*
"In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandars role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

"Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad."

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

*Bandar Bush supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, did you?*


----------



## R.C. Christian

Even if any of you could convince me that Syria did it I could give you 5 more reasons why attacking them is a bad Idea, not to mention illegal.


----------



## Kondor3

U2Edge said:


> "...Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well..."



That's great. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and France do it, then.



> "...The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997..."



All true.

But the Administration knows that it is now on shaky ground and has deferred the matter to the Congress, which, as our duly-elected Representatives, will, hopefully, execute the Will of the People in this matter.



> "..._The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed._"



I'll let the Brits speak for themselves on that one, but, at such a juncture, it is important to remember that the Brits were the first ones to get behind us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to jump-in with both feet, in a big way, and that they proved themselves to be worthy allies during the course of those conflicts.

They simply chose to sit this one out.

Like we seem likely to do, at this juncture.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We want to stop the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Doing nothing won't accomplish that. It will increase the proliferation and use of chemical weapons on the battlefield._"
> 
> 
> 
> Nolo contendre.
> 
> No contest.
> 
> The question now becomes...
> 
> *"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?*
> 
> The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.
> 
> And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.
> 
> It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
Click to expand...

Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?

The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.

The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
What's your problem with that?


----------



## Kondor3

R.C. Christian said:


> Even if any of you could convince me that Syria did it I could give you 5 more reasons why attacking them is a bad Idea, not to mention illegal.


In my own mind, the blow-back is more important than the legal nicities...

We have a penchant for screwing things up and making them worse, when we do a half-assed driveby-shooting on a country...

There is no reason to believe that the outcome with this one would be any better...


----------



## R.C. Christian

Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.


----------



## georgephillip

R.C. Christian said:


> Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.


*John and Lindsey aren't scared:*

"Obama appeared to make some headway, however, with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who came out of a White House meeting with him *convinced that the president is willing to do more than simply fire off cruise missiles* and also wants to bolster the Syrian opposition."

As Obama pushes to punish Syria, lawmakers fear deep U.S. involvement | Reuters


----------



## JWBooth

georgephillip said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.
> 
> 
> 
> *John and Lindsey aren't scared:*
> 
> "Obama appeared to make some headway, however, with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who came out of a White House meeting with him *convinced that the president is willing to do more than simply fire off cruise missiles* and also wants to bolster the Syrian opposition."
> 
> As Obama pushes to punish Syria, lawmakers fear deep U.S. involvement | Reuters
Click to expand...

Lindsey, bless her heart, is a ventriloquist's dummy for McQuisling. The two of them are ever eager for somebody to be dying at the hands of the US military 24/7/365


----------



## georgephillip

JWBooth said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, WWIII is not an event that I would to see transpire.
> 
> 
> 
> *John and Lindsey aren't scared:*
> 
> "Obama appeared to make some headway, however, with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who came out of a White House meeting with him *convinced that the president is willing to do more than simply fire off cruise missiles* and also wants to bolster the Syrian opposition."
> 
> As Obama pushes to punish Syria, lawmakers fear deep U.S. involvement | Reuters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lindsey, bless her heart, is a ventriloquist's dummy for McQuisling. The two of them are ever eager for somebody to be dying at the hands of the US military 24/7/365
Click to expand...

And they never hesitate to increase private profits for defense contractors and Wall Street banks while socializing the suffering from Fallujah to Damascus to WTC7.


----------



## The Professor

On the Drudge Report, there was also a poll.  The  question was asked whether Obama should be given authority to conduct military action against Syria.   The last time I checked the response  was:

Yes:   2,,351
No:   26,294

DRUDGE REPORT 2013®


----------



## Geaux4it

I just heard on the Five and a Pentagon reporter said the Syrian Air Defense systems are manned with Russians. Now, that's a game changer IMO, if we happen to take those out and kill Russians.

The NIMITZ is moving into position. This thing stinks to high heaven

-Geaux


----------



## Hoffstra

it we were gonna take action, it would have been better if we had done it on Saturday.

doing it in 2 weeks, will be much worse.




I think Obama made a boo boo, if his intention is to go to war with or without Congressional approval.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Hoffstra said:


> it we were gonna take action, it would have been better if we had done it on Saturday.
> 
> doing it in 2 weeks, will be much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Obama made a boo boo, if his intention is to go to war with or without Congressional approval.



This whole thing is taking a turn for the surreal. It really is. Nothing that is going on here makes an ounce of sense - but something stinks to high heaven here.

Time will tell I guess.


----------



## Kat3eWhit

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks


----------



## Geaux4it

Sounds like we were testing air defense system

-Geaux

Breaking News Reuters

Russia says ballistic 'objects' fired in Mediterranean | Reuters


(Reuters) - Russian radar detected the launch of two ballistic "objects" towards the eastern Mediterranean from the central part of the sea on Tuesday, Russian news agencies quoted the Defence Ministry as saying.

Interfax news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying the launch was detected at 10:16 am Moscow time (2.16 a.m. ET) by an early warning radar station at Armavir, near the Black Sea, which is designed to detect missiles from Europe and Iran.

The agencies did not say who had carried out the launch and whether any impact had been detected. The ministry declined comment to Reuters.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu had informed President Vladimir Putin of the launch.

"The trajectory of these objects goes from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea toward the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast," Interfax quoted the spokesman as saying.

A ministry official had earlier criticized the United States for deploying warships in the Mediterranean close to Syria.
__________________
In Honor of my Great Grandfather (3x) who served in The 49th Regiment- Tennessee Infantry- 'K' Company


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nolo contendre.
> 
> No contest.
> 
> The question now becomes...
> 
> *"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?*
> 
> The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.
> 
> And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.
> 
> It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?
> 
> The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.
> 
> The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
> What's your problem with that?
Click to expand...


Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.

           The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself. 

             No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.


----------



## Geaux4it

Military has concerns about Syria mission

Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A frank assessment of the risks
In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?
> 
> The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.
> 
> The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
> What's your problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
Click to expand...


You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

Kondor3 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's great. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and France do it, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All true.
> 
> But the Administration knows that it is now on shaky ground and has deferred the matter to the Congress, which, as our duly-elected Representatives, will, hopefully, execute the Will of the People in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let the Brits speak for themselves on that one, but, at such a juncture, it is important to remember that the Brits were the first ones to get behind us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to jump-in with both feet, in a big way, and that they proved themselves to be worthy allies during the course of those conflicts.
> 
> They simply chose to sit this one out.
> 
> Like we seem likely to do, at this juncture.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the President will get his way. Republicans don't want to be seen supporting a dictator like Assad or standing passively by in the face of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction or appear weak on a national security issue.

         Democrats will support their President mostly. 50% of the house and the senate is an easy bar to pass.

       Plus, even if the President doesn't get to 50% approval, he can still launch the missile strike.

*George H.W. Bush was willing to launch the first Gulf War in 1991 even if he did not get a majority of the members of congress behind them.*

       The fact is, the only real power the congress has over the Presidency is its ability to cut funding. But in order to cut funding, congress needs a veto proof 2/3 majority. Congress does not have that right now in either the Senate or the House, so Obama can go ahead with the strike PERIOD!


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> Military has concerns about Syria mission
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> A frank assessment of the risks
> In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
> In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
> "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.



That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?
> 
> The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.
> 
> The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
> What's your problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the *right thing to do or not!*


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> A frank assessment of the risks
> In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
> In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
> "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.
Click to expand...


But it will not stop Assad from doing anything. You are not with the majority of Americans on this issue and I think Congress will see that as well

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the *right thing to do or not!*
Click to expand...


But on this site and every other poll I have seen, Americans say this *IS NOT THE RIGHT thing* to do

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> A frank assessment of the risks
> In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about *the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.*
> In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's *limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay*.
> "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.
Click to expand...


And back in July review his comments about a limited strike

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- You have more assumptions than Carter has liver pills
> 
> You ever thought why Syria used gas in the first place? Was Assad just checking to see if Obama was bluffing, which he was?
> 
> He and his allies want us to attack
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least my assumptions are based on the facts on the ground in Syria and what Assad has already demonstrated what he is willing to do and not do.
> 
> He could strike back at Israel, but he didn't because he has more important things to use his military assets for.
> 
> Syria used Gas because its away to successfully speed up Syrian success and taken of ground from the rebels and his less costly in casualties for the Syrian military. Its a cheap, easy, quick way to make dramatic gains on the battlefield.
> 
> They did very limited testing in the Spring, so limited that people question if chemicals were even used and whether it was the rebels who used them.
> 
> Obama did nothing. That led to the attack on August 21. The Syrians miscalculated and thought they could get away with a much larger attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you've still provided no evidence the Syrian government was responsible:
> 
> *"Saudi involvement*
> "In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandars role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.
> 
> "Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad."
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
> 
> *Bandar Bush supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, did you?*
Click to expand...


Invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a necessity and the United States, vital Persian Gulf Oil and natural gas, the global economy, middle east region and the world are all safer now that Saddam is gone!

             Yep, the Saudi's launched the chemical attack, just like all those monkees that randomly fly out of Putins ass from time to time.


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nolo contendre.
> 
> No contest.
> 
> The question now becomes...
> 
> *"Do we want to stop it badly enough to commit an open Act of War"?*
> 
> The answer appears to be "No" - judging by the UN Security Council vote and the British Parliament vote and popular polling to-date across America and early feedback from many of the members of Congress who will be looking at this, soon.
> 
> And, of course, if we don't want that badly enough, then we simply won't get it.
> 
> It won't be the end of the world... and America is just a wee-bit war-weary, right about now... we can use the breather... let somebody else deal with this kind of thing, for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With friends like those, who needs enemies? Yikes! And there are no interests to protect. Lets sit this one out.
Click to expand...


The United States has huge interest in preventing the proliferation and use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION around the world. Such weapons are a threat to the United States and its interest and erode the United States advantages in conventional military strength. 

         We want to reduce the probability that the United States military will come under attack from such weapons. Doing nothing about Syria's use of chemical weapons increases the probability that they will one day be attacked by such weapons!


----------



## 007

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the *right thing to do or not!*
Click to expand...

The right thing for America to do is to stop meddling in the middle east with invasions and nation building. We're not the world's police either. We need get our nose out of all these little fights in the ME which have been going on for thousands of years, and will probably continue to go on for thousands of more years. They're taught to hate each other from birth, so trying to stop them from killing each other is the dumbest thing to attempt on the planet. Best thing the rest of the world could do is sit back and let them kill each other until there's not enough of them around to even worry about, and if they attack another country outside the ME like they did us on 9/11, then go in, light them up like the fourth of July for a couple weeks, set them back a decade or so, then leave them alone, no aide, no money, no occupying, no nation building, just thank for attacking us when we were leaving you alone, now enjoy your parking lot for a country. THAT is the right thing to do.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> A frank assessment of the risks
> In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about *the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.*
> In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's *limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay*.
> "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And back in July review his comments about a limited strike
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Again, were talking about the Mass use of chemical weapons and the impact of a limited strike to deter further use. There had been no mass use of chemical weapons back in July 2013. 

        The Presidents entire cabinet is on board with the strike so whatever Dempsey has advised them of recently appears to be more in line with the Presidents stated goals.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With friends like those, who needs enemies? Yikes! And there are no interests to protect. Lets sit this one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has huge interest in preventing the proliferation and use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION around the world. Such weapons are a threat to the United States and its interest and erode the United States advantages in conventional military strength.
> 
> We want to reduce the probability that the United States military will come under attack from such weapons. Doing nothing about Syria's use of chemical weapons increases the probability that they will one day be attacked by such weapons!
Click to expand...


I see your copy/paste function skills from yesterdays failed debate are fine and well.

Your on the wrong side of this issue, but keep trying to convince others if you must

-Geaux


----------



## U2Edge

007 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in the great minority who wants this war and are spending quite of bit of time showing why it's in our best interest to stand down.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this website, that would indeed be the case. But I don't base what I think the United States should do or not do based on how popular something is, but whether its the *right thing to do or not!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right thing for America to do is to stop meddling in the middle east with invasions and nation building. We're not the world's police either. We need get our nose out of all these little fights in the ME which have been going on for thousands of years, and will probably continue to go on for thousands of more years. They're taught to hate each other from birth, so trying to stop them from killing each other is the dumbest thing to attempt on the planet. Best thing the rest of the world could do is sit back and let them kill each other until there's not enough of them around to even worry about, and if they attack another country outside the ME like they did us on 9/11, then go in, light them up like the fourth of July for a couple weeks, set them back a decade or so, then leave them alone, no aide, no money, no occupying, no nation building, just thank for attacking us when we were leaving you alone, now enjoy your parking lot for a country. THAT is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


          In the real world, the United States and the rest of the planet is dependent upon Persian Gulf oil and natural gas to prevent the price of energy from rising to quickly. 

          Whether you like it or not, the price you pay for gas at the pump as well as the price you pay for the food that you put in your mouth every day is dependent on whether oil and natural gas is freely flowing from the Persian Gulf or not. Its been that way since World War II and its not going to change any time soon. Just remember that the next time you pay for food, put gas in your car, or use anything that requires electricity!


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> With friends like those, who needs enemies? Yikes! And there are no interests to protect. Lets sit this one out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has huge interest in preventing the proliferation and use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION around the world. Such weapons are a threat to the United States and its interest and erode the United States advantages in conventional military strength.
> 
> We want to reduce the probability that the United States military will come under attack from such weapons. Doing nothing about Syria's use of chemical weapons increases the probability that they will one day be attacked by such weapons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your copy/paste function skills from yesterdays failed debate are fine and well.
> 
> Your on the wrong side of this issue, but keep trying to convince others if you must
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


              Don't worry, the missile strike is coming whether you like it or not.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission
> 
> Military has concerns about Syria mission - CNN.com
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- When Congress is tasked with debating U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, a common refrain from lawmakers is to follow the advice of military commanders. It has been repeated dozens of times, for instance, by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, when discussing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> A frank assessment of the risks
> In a series of communications with Congress over the summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified and wrote letters to Congress about the risk of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Chief among them is the challenge that a limited strike remain limited in scope.
> In an assessment to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
> "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it will not stop Assad from doing anything. You are not with the majority of Americans on this issue and I think Congress will see that as well
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


        It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was back in July and about getting involved in the conflict. It was not about a limited missile strike to prevent the mass use of Chemical weapons by Assad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it will not stop Assad from doing anything. You are not with the majority of Americans on this issue and I think Congress will see that as well
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!
Click to expand...

You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well.
> 
> The United States does not need authorization from the UN to defend its interest or enforce the chemical weapons convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?
> 
> The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.
> 
> The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
> What's your problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
Click to expand...

Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:

"The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being '*instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'* 

"The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test). 

"This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."

Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Geaux4it

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?
> 
> The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.
> 
> The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
> What's your problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:
> 
> "The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being '*instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'*
> 
> "The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).
> 
> "This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
> 
> Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Indeed- And if this was a real threat to National Security, why is Obama sitting on his hands? There is no sense of urgency so this cannot be an actual threat to the United States

-Geaux


----------



## georgephillip

Geaux4it said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> 
> 
> Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:
> 
> "The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being '*instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'*
> 
> "The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).
> 
> "This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
> 
> Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed- And if this was a real threat to National Security, why is Obama sitting on his hands? There is no sense of urgency so this cannot be an actual threat to the United States
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

I suspect some are getting tired of my posting this link; however, I still believes it answers many questions like yours:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.' 

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'" 

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any sense of urgency may stem more from propping up the petrodollar which, I suppose, could qualify as a threat to National Security on Wall Street (and main street).


----------



## JWBooth

Just a random thought...

Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
Proxy war?


----------



## orogenicman

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it will not stop Assad from doing anything. You are not with the majority of Americans on this issue and I think Congress will see that as well
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.
Click to expand...


Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI.  But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME.  Otherwise what is the friggin point?


----------



## Redfish

orogenicman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI.  But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME.  Otherwise what is the friggin point?
Click to expand...



despite what obozo, McCrazy, and Grannesty say about Syria, there is no US interest at stake in the syrian civil war.   Its none of our damn business.   Let them fight it our until someone wins.  

the dialog coming out of DC today sounds very much like the dialog before the viet nam fiasco-------"if we don't stop them the whole region will be destroyed or become communist".

That stupid war cost us 58,000 americans and billions of dollars for absolutely nothing, and we also heard the "no boots ont he ground" bullshit before that one.

Stay the hell out of other countries business.


----------



## georgephillip

JWBooth said:


> Just a random thought...
> 
> Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
> Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
> Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
> Proxy war?


Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.


----------



## Redfish

georgephillip said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a random thought...
> 
> Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
> Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
> Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
> Proxy war?
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.
Click to expand...


maybe thats obama's real goal in this,  drive up gas prices to complete his destruction of the US economy.


----------



## georgephillip

orogenicman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI.  But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME.  Otherwise what is the friggin point?
Click to expand...

Apparently, the point is regime change in Damascus and Tehran. The following is Franklin Lamb's recent eyewitness account conditions in Syria:

"Informed sources report to this observer that the government decision not to bomb the suburbs including east Gouta, which normally occurs nightly, was taken at the highest level in order to send a reply message from Syria to America and personally  to President Obama, whose speech just hours earlier in Washington contained several messages for the leadership in Damascus.   

"What the  Syrian government was signaling, some claim, was its willingness to join Tehran, Moscow and Washington in finding a peaceful solution to Syrias crisis, starting with Geneva II.

"Meanwhile, the ever rising cost of living for Syrias population, due in large measure to the US-led economic sanctions, designed at the US Treasury Departments Office of Financial Assets Control (OFAC), to target Syrias civilian population so it breaks with their government, *thereby facilitating the US White House goal of regime change in Syria and Iran*, continues to devastate many families here."

Syria Countdown » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Kondor3

To make omelettes, you've gotta break a few eggs.

The question is: "_Is regime change worth the hardships?_"

That's another animal, entirely.

And, it requires a crystal ball, to predict what comes afterwards.


----------



## georgephillip

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a random thought...
> 
> Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
> Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
> Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
> Proxy war?
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe thats obama's real goal in this,  drive up gas prices to complete his destruction of the US economy.
Click to expand...

*Or maybe he gets a performance bonus for every dead child?*

"In making his case for setting Bashar Al-Assad right, Obama emotes copiously about the children killed in suburban Damascus  allegedly by 'the Assad regimes' poison gas. 

"We know beyond a reasonable doubt that intervening with American bombs and missiles into the combustible mix that Syria has become is a recipe for guaranteeing that many more children will die..."

CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Circe

JWBooth said:


> Just a random thought...
> 
> Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
> Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
> Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
> Proxy war?



Proxy war in the sense getting the U.S. into a war with Iran shortly after we attack Syria. Israel has been begging and begging us to hit Iran; it is impossible for me to imagine that we'll stop with a few hits on Syria.

I think it's the beginning of World War III. It will spread quickly to Iran, and after that, who knows. Pakistan, probably.


----------



## Avatar4321

I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.


----------



## Avatar4321

Circe said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a random thought...
> 
> Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
> Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
> Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
> Proxy war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proxy war in the sense getting the U.S. into a war with Iran shortly after we attack Syria. Israel has been begging and begging us to hit Iran; it is impossible for me to imagine that we'll stop with a few hits on Syria.
> 
> I think it's the beginning of World War III. It will spread quickly to Iran, and after that, who knows. Pakistan, probably.
Click to expand...


I would expect war with egypt before this is over as well. Though Im not sure what side Egypt will be on or what. Regardless. this is not good


----------



## Avatar4321

Kondor3 said:


> To make omelettes, you've gotta break a few eggs.
> 
> The question is: "_Is regime change worth the hardships?_"
> 
> That's another animal, entirely.
> 
> And, it requires a crystal ball, to predict what comes afterwards.



I thought the administration said the goal wasnt regime change.


----------



## Circe

Avatar4321 said:


> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.



152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.

I hope we'll see some national polls this week. 

Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.

Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.

I can't see it, myself.


----------



## Avatar4321

Circe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.
> 
> I hope we'll see some national polls this week.
> 
> Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.
> 
> Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.
> 
> I can't see it, myself.
Click to expand...


The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.


----------



## Circe

Avatar4321 said:


> The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.



Works for me. You're probably right.  [:-(


----------



## georgephillip

Circe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.
> 
> I hope we'll see some national polls this week.
> 
> Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.
> 
> Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.
> 
> I can't see it, myself.
Click to expand...

I hope we all see the "R" or "D" behind virtually every congressional incumbent running for reelection next year. With all due respect, those members of congress who vote for more war will be acting on economic imperatives. Those of us whose ballots offer third party alternatives to the War Party umbrella of Republicans AND Democrats could take advantage of their ballots to FLUSH dozens or hundreds of incumbents from DC in a single news cycle.

This is an old idea of "throwing all the bums out" that has been waiting on the internet and those of us who use it daily to try and make sense of our world.

If millions of US voters cast a ballot AGAINST Republican AND Democrat incumbents who vote for more war in November 2014, the rich in this country will come face to face with a problem they haven't seen since Tom Paine died.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

orogenicman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will stop Assad from using chemical weapons because of the use of chemical weapons means United States Air Strikes, he loses any advantage from using chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons for Assad will in fact become counter productive. Assad wants to win the civil war, not lose it!
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI.  But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME.  Otherwise what is the friggin point?
Click to expand...


Our wars have nothing to do with Germany's wars, and you don't see the hypocrisy of the Agent Orange? How can modern-day massive chemical usage somehow become irrelevant all of a sudden?


----------



## BDBoop

I've had it up to here with war. Enough already. Bring everybody home, they can police our borders, work on infrastructure, etc.


----------



## R.C. Christian

When monkey man starts lobbing missiles at Assad, life as you know it will, most likely, change very dramatically. The potential for unintended consequences is extraordinary in this military misadventure.


----------



## B. Kidd

Russia plans on sending Russian lawmakers to address our Congress. In my 60 years, this is unprecedented in a U.S. lead-up to a military action. Maybe they're coming to remind our lawmakers that we are still in the crosshairs of Russian and Chinese subs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

B. Kidd said:


> Russia plans on sending Russian lawmakers to address our Congress. In my 60 years, this is unprecedented in a U.S. lead-up to a military action. Maybe they're coming to remind our lawmakers that we are still in the crosshairs of Russian and Chinese subs.



Remember the Strategic Defense Initiative that you of the left attacked Reagan over? Guess what? Clinton, Bush, AND Obama continued to fund it. It works, very well. Subs off shore don't mean a lot since they can't deliver a payload.


----------



## R.C. Christian

B. Kidd said:


> Russia plans on sending Russian lawmakers to address our Congress. In my 60 years, this is unprecedented in a U.S. lead-up to a military action. Maybe they're coming to remind our lawmakers that we are still in the crosshairs of Russian and Chinese subs.



Make it feel a bit more surreal and scary doesn't it?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

R.C. Christian said:


> When monkey man starts lobbing missiles at Assad, life as you know it will, most likely, change very dramatically. The potential for unintended consequences is extraordinary in this military misadventure.



It's like obie is actively searching for his Gulf of Tonkin and can't wait to find it.


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emerites have agreed to provide military forces for any US strike on Syria. The French are in as well..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's great. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and France do it, then.
> 
> 
> 
> All true.
> 
> But the Administration knows that it is now on shaky ground and has deferred the matter to the Congress, which, as our duly-elected Representatives, will, hopefully, execute the Will of the People in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The United Kingdom unfortunately is a country in decline, socially, morally, religiously, economically and militarily! Technically, they won't really be missed._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let the Brits speak for themselves on that one, but, at such a juncture, it is important to remember that the Brits were the first ones to get behind us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to jump-in with both feet, in a big way, and that they proved themselves to be worthy allies during the course of those conflicts.
> 
> They simply chose to sit this one out.
> 
> Like we seem likely to do, at this juncture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the President will get his way. Republicans don't want to be seen supporting a dictator like Assad or standing passively by in the face of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction or appear weak on a national security issue.
> 
> Democrats will support their President mostly. 50% of the house and the senate is an easy bar to pass.
> 
> Plus, even if the President doesn't get to 50% approval, he can still launch the missile strike.
> 
> *George H.W. Bush was willing to launch the first Gulf War in 1991 even if he did not get a majority of the members of congress behind them.*
> 
> The fact is, the only real power the congress has over the Presidency is its ability to cut funding. But in order to cut funding, congress needs a veto proof 2/3 majority. Congress does not have that right now in either the Senate or the House, so Obama can go ahead with the strike PERIOD!
Click to expand...


If you consider Republicans that vote against an act of war against Syria support for Assad, do you consider the Democrats that opposed the war in Iraq supporters of Saddam Hussein?

Just asking.


----------



## R.C. Christian

AzMike said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> When monkey man starts lobbing missiles at Assad, life as you know it will, most likely, change very dramatically. The potential for unintended consequences is extraordinary in this military misadventure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like obie is actively searching for his Gulf of Tonkin and can't wait to find it.
Click to expand...


He's had his Tonkin chance once before and it backfired but he's holding on tight to this one.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I do not only want there to be no WAR with Syria, I don't even want to lob in missiles or bombs.  Those might be acts of war but would not constitute being AT war.

On the other hand, I also agree to a small extent with President Obama, the dumb-ass in chief.  He happens to be correct up to a point.  It *is* actually a bad thing to know that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, as he clearly did, killing hundreds of innocents, including mere children, and yet not lift a finger to stop him from doing it some more.

This is a hard lesson.  There are some problems in life for which no good, easy or even satisfactory solutions exist.  

If we attack that piece of rat shit, Assad, then we are helping HIS enemies which includes our enemy, al qaeda.

If we elect not to bust any move against that piece of shit Assad, for fear of assisting al qaeda in any way, then Assad not only gets away with his slaughter of innocents, but is likely to be emboldened enough to do it some more, down the road.

Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.

Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.


----------



## Avatar4321

IlarMeilyr said:


> Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.
> 
> Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.



I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.


----------



## B. Kidd

When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.
This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Circe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.
> 
> I hope we'll see some national polls this week.
> 
> Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.
> 
> Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.
> 
> I can't see it, myself.
Click to expand...


It just shows us all there no longer  a difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

B. Kidd said:


> When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.
> This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.



If so, then mumbling some crap about the "red line" was a piss-poor stupid-ass thing for Obumbler to have intoned.  

And when we wish a pox on both their houses, there are a lot of perfectly innocent victims who will get swept up in the ensuing bloodshed.

Even worse, sooner or later, one of the two pox ridden combatants will likely prevail.  And then, more bad shit will flow.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Avatar4321 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.
> 
> Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.
Click to expand...


Why is a vote against authorizing an attack a bad idea?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Avatar4321 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.
> 
> Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.
Click to expand...


How about a stated hands-off foreign policy in the Middle East?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

B. Kidd said:


> *When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.*
> This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.



Oh yea, most people thought that was a great thing for the U.S.


----------



## Avatar4321

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.
> 
> Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a stated hands-off foreign policy in the Middle East?
Click to expand...


sounds good to me.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Avatar4321 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.
> 
> I hope we'll see some national polls this week.
> 
> Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.
> 
> Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.
> 
> I can't see it, myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.
Click to expand...


We can do some things, like let our Congressmen know we oppose this war. Beyond that, we simply respond to what happens. Ultimately, we will face much wrath from the rest of the world for all the havoc we have unleashed on others for so many years.


----------



## B. Kidd

IlarMeilyr said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.
> This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, then mumbling some crap about the "red line" was a piss-poor stupid-ass thing for Obumbler to have intoned.
> 
> And when we wish a pox on both their houses, there are a lot of perfectly innocent victims who will get swept up in the ensuing bloodshed.
> 
> Even worse, sooner or later, one of the two pox ridden combatants will likely prevail.  And then, more bad shit will flow.
Click to expand...


Syria has not attacked us. If bad shit flows later and they decide to, we'll deal with it then. In this situation, using military power in the name of 'American Exceptionalism' is a double-edged sword.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.
> 
> I hope we'll see some national polls this week.
> 
> Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.
> 
> Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.
> 
> I can't see it, myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only explanation I can see is the Judgments of God are on us. When the Lord wants to destroy a people, he takes away their wisdom and their judgment as to what's in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can do some things, like let our Congressmen know we oppose this war. Beyond that, we simply respond to what happens. Ultimately, we will face much wrath from the rest of the world for all the havoc we have unleashed on others for so many years.
Click to expand...


Right now, we don't have to worry, because we could defeat or at least, repel most of the world with our air power that is many times greater than the rest of the world's combined. Without that advantage, we are up shit creek, and are we so sure that that advantage will outlast the outrage that is brewing across the world?


----------



## Camp

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voting to authorize the President's threat to lob missiles at Assad-related-military-targets is a horrible idea.
> 
> Voting against the President's request for such authorization is a horrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a vote against authorizing an attack a bad idea?
Click to expand...


It's a bad idea if you are a politician and your number one priority is to get re-elected. If you vote yes and things go bad, like a big ass war or a bunch of civilian casaulties, etc., you can say this was not what you agreed upon and the administration went further than they were supposed to or were incompetent, etc. If you vote no, and an attack of chemical or bio weapons is launced that inflicts huge casaultie, or worse, is made on Israel and drags the USA into war anyhow, the no vote will become a career ending vote. The no voters will be blamed for all the hell that follows. The only politicians that might survive are the one's who had overwhelming constituent support for the no vote. Provable overwhelming support.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

B. Kidd said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Iran and Iraq was involved in their war of attrition, Henry Kissinger was asked whom he wanted to win. His answer was that he hoped they both lost.
> This should be our attitude towards the Syrian civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, then mumbling some crap about the "red line" was a piss-poor stupid-ass thing for Obumbler to have intoned.
> 
> And when we wish a pox on both their houses, there are a lot of perfectly innocent victims who will get swept up in the ensuing bloodshed.
> 
> Even worse, sooner or later, one of the two pox ridden combatants will likely prevail.  And then, more bad shit will flow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syria has not attacked us. If bad shit flows later and they decide to, we'll deal with it then. In this situation, using military power in the name of 'American Exceptionalism' is a double-edged sword.
Click to expand...


I didn't advocate for one position or the other.

What I am saying is that bad shit is likely to ensue no matter which course we now take.

And I said nothing at all about "American Exceptionalism."

There is much to the concept of American Exceptionalism.  But it has *nothing at all* to do with coherent foreign policy.

Our present problem stems from the fact that this President doesn't even have a fuzzy first notion of what our foreign policy is or should be.


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link establishing the fact Turkey and Saudi Arabia are planning to kill Muslims to defend the petrodollar?
> 
> The US needs to secure a UNSC resolution to go to war or demonstrate an imminent threat posed by Syria to the US homeland or risk another violation of international law.
> 
> The UK actually embraced democracy in this matter.
> What's your problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:
> 
> "The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being '*instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'*
> 
> "The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).
> 
> "This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
> 
> Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


          There are other reasons where taking self defensive action is justified. An imminent threat is only one justification, there are others.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a violation of international law to defend yourself and defending yourself in the 21st century goes far beyond defending the physical borders of your country. The year is 2013 not 1812.
> 
> The United States NEVER needs approval from the United Nations in order to defend itself.
> 
> No problem with the UKs democratic vote, but they made a dumb choice. But its fitting with the total decline of the United Kingdom with each year that goes by.
> 
> 
> 
> Had the technology been available in 1812 to lob 300 cruise missiles into Syria, international law would not have stood in the way. That isn't the case in 2013 unless you can point out the imminent threat Assad poses to the US homeland:
> 
> "The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being '*instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'*
> 
> "The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test).
> 
> "This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
> 
> Self-defence in international law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed- And if this was a real threat to National Security, why is Obama sitting on his hands? There is no sense of urgency so this cannot be an actual threat to the United States
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


              Once again, a threat does not have to be imminent in order to justify the use of military force in a defensive fashion.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole,  as well.

Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.

Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown any proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons, as opposed to the fully documented war crime of the US dumping more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia between 1966-1972, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Germany used mustard gas during WWI.  But none of that is relevant to the fact that current events have taken place after certain international agreements were met, which, of course, Syria is not officially a party to; nonetheless, if that treaty is going to have any meaning, it certainly must apply to Syria's stockpile, seeing that it is one of the largest on the planet, certainly the largest in the ME.  Otherwise what is the friggin point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> despite what obozo, McCrazy, and Grannesty say about Syria, there is no US interest at stake in the syrian civil war.   Its none of our damn business.   Let them fight it our until someone wins.
> 
> the dialog coming out of DC today sounds very much like the dialog before the viet nam fiasco-------"if we don't stop them the whole region will be destroyed or become communist".
> 
> That stupid war cost us 58,000 americans and billions of dollars for absolutely nothing, and we also heard the "no boots ont he ground" bullshit before that one.
> 
> Stay the hell out of other countries business.
Click to expand...


          The Vietnam war was part of defending the world against global Soviet Communism, in this particular case, defending and independent State, South Vietnam from being swallowed by its northern neighbor. 

           The United States had nearly succeeded in Vietnam, by congress in 1973 undercut the effort that was succeeding. Funding for further US military action in Vietnam was cut by congress in 1973 and they also drastically cut funding for South Vietnam at a time when the whole world was reeling from the oil crises. At the time, Russia and China were pouring massive amounts of money and weapons into North Vietnam.

            By 1975, South Vietnames military had been gutted by the cutbacks and the US military was not allowed to support it with airpower. That's why the communist were able to role in blitzkrieg style in the Spring of 75. Had congress not cut funding in 1973 and allowed United States Air Power to continue to support South Vietnam, the communist offensive in 1975 would have been crushed!


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a random thought...
> 
> Syria and Iran are fairly tight.
> Netanyahu has been arguing for a war with Iran since Clinton was potus and getting few takers.
> Now the usual suspects in Tel Aviv's pocket are foaming at the mouth to get the US to attack Syria.
> Proxy war?
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has said it will honor its mutual defense treaty with Syria which could spike oil prices in this country considerably. There seems little doubt the powers that be are redrawing the borders of middle eastern countries a century after Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire after the War to End All Wars. Personally, I remember the gas lines of 1973 and it makes me glad I don't drive anymore.
Click to expand...


Iran is not going to do jack shit after the United States missile strike. Yes, they will continue to send supplies and fund their proxies as always. But the Iranian military has not directly appeared on any battlefield since 1988.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Looks as though NOW would be a good time to, once again, remind everyone of what is coming:


THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


.....Soon, folks.....soon.


----------



## U2Edge

Avatar4321 said:


> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.



There is not overwhelming opposition. The President will get the Senates approval no problem. He has a little work to do in the house, maybe 20 votes, but that's it. 

          All Obama needs is 70% of House Democrats and 33% of house Republicans and he'll have 50% of the house. No problem.


----------



## Camp

RandallFlagg said:


> Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole,  as well.
> 
> Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.
> 
> Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....



I missed that poll about strikes. Saw the one about going to war, but not the one about missile strikes or limited air attack. Mostly when folks get bamboozled it's because they are told untrue stuff and make their decisions on fraudulent information.  Like changing what a poll that was taken for into something it wasn't. That would be bamboozling people into thinking something occured that did not really occur.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I am completely happy to see overwhelming opposition to this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 152 to 6 against war with Syria on this poll here.
> 
> I hope we'll see some national polls this week.
> 
> Disappointingly, it looks like Congress means to vote in favor of this war. I really can't understand this, given the apparent opposition of the voters on both sides.
> 
> Maybe it's because Obama is black. If they're black, you're supposed to give them whatever they ask for. Even if they want a big war.
> 
> I can't see it, myself.
Click to expand...


Shows you how totally  out of step people on this forum are, doesn't it. Congress is going to approve, even thought President could launch the strike without the 50% approval margin.


----------



## U2Edge

R.C. Christian said:


> When monkey man starts lobbing missiles at Assad, life as you know it will, most likely, change very dramatically. The potential for unintended consequences is extraordinary in this military misadventure.



               It will be fun to see what you have to say when that does not happen after the missile strike.


----------



## U2Edge

B. Kidd said:


> Russia plans on sending Russian lawmakers to address our Congress. In my 60 years, this is unprecedented in a U.S. lead-up to a military action. Maybe they're coming to remind our lawmakers that we are still in the crosshairs of Russian and Chinese subs.



They won't do anything. The United States accidentally bombed China's embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and China essentially did nothing! The Russians did not confront the US bombing their little ally Serbia or their old client Saddam either.


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE and France do it, then.
> 
> 
> 
> All true.
> 
> But the Administration knows that it is now on shaky ground and has deferred the matter to the Congress, which, as our duly-elected Representatives, will, hopefully, execute the Will of the People in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let the Brits speak for themselves on that one, but, at such a juncture, it is important to remember that the Brits were the first ones to get behind us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to jump-in with both feet, in a big way, and that they proved themselves to be worthy allies during the course of those conflicts.
> 
> They simply chose to sit this one out.
> 
> Like we seem likely to do, at this juncture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the President will get his way. Republicans don't want to be seen supporting a dictator like Assad or standing passively by in the face of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction or appear weak on a national security issue.
> 
> Democrats will support their President mostly. 50% of the house and the senate is an easy bar to pass.
> 
> Plus, even if the President doesn't get to 50% approval, he can still launch the missile strike.
> 
> *George H.W. Bush was willing to launch the first Gulf War in 1991 even if he did not get a majority of the members of congress behind them.*
> 
> The fact is, the only real power the congress has over the Presidency is its ability to cut funding. But in order to cut funding, congress needs a veto proof 2/3 majority. Congress does not have that right now in either the Senate or the House, so Obama can go ahead with the strike PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider Republicans that vote against an act of war against Syria support for Assad, do you consider the Democrats that opposed the war in Iraq supporters of Saddam Hussein?
> 
> Just asking.
Click to expand...


Yep. Supporters indeed of letting Saddam remain in power which was indeed the wrong choice!


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole,  as well.
> 
> Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.
> 
> Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....



The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.


----------



## Contumacious

Two large Russian amphibious assault ships sail off to Mediterranean

.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole,  as well.
> 
> Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.
> 
> Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.
Click to expand...


Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.

Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.

But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".

Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.

But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.

Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.


----------



## Kondor3

Contumacious said:


> Two large Russian amphibious assault ships sail off to Mediterranean
> 
> .



Looks like those two ships (both Ropucha-class, according to the article) - combined - only have the ability to land - at best - a Light Battalion, along with a dozen or more mid-sized tanks or personnel carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropucha-class_landing_ship






If memory serves, the Russians have 10,000 or more (perhaps much more?) Russian citizens still in Syria, after all these years of client-state relations.

It's a good first guess that a Battalion-sized ground force would come in handy, in guarding a naval base, especially if it ends-up being used as a port of embarkation for hundreds or thousands of Russian evacuees streaming to the base from the interior, should the shit hit the fan and Russian citizens be endangered... they may also be considering using that Battalion to reach stranded pockets of Russian civilians and then fight their way back to the ports, with the civilians in tow... ala Dunkirk...

I don't think that the Russians plan on doing any kind of Interdiction or Defense of their Client with such a tiny force...

Although you never can tell...

If they intended to put up a Big Stink, methinks they'd be moving far more assets into the region...

I could be wrong, but that's the initial sense that I've got for it...


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the President will get his way. Republicans don't want to be seen supporting a dictator like Assad or standing passively by in the face of the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction or appear weak on a national security issue.
> 
> Democrats will support their President mostly. 50% of the house and the senate is an easy bar to pass.
> 
> Plus, even if the President doesn't get to 50% approval, he can still launch the missile strike.
> 
> * George H.W. Bush was willing to launch the first Gulf War in 1991 even if he did not get a majority of the members of congress behind them.*
> The fact is, the only real power the congress has over the Presidency is its ability to cut funding. But in order to cut funding, congress needs a veto proof 2/3 majority. Congress does not have that right now in either the Senate or the House, so Obama can go ahead with the strike PERIOD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider Republicans that vote against an act of war against Syria support for Assad, do you consider the Democrats that opposed the war in Iraq supporters of Saddam Hussein?
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Supporters indeed of letting Saddam remain in power which was indeed the wrong choice!
Click to expand...


Just so you will know:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub.L. 1021) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.

House Joint Resolution 77 was approved in the United States House of Representatives on January 12, 1991 by a vote of *250 to 183.*
Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democrats voted for the resolution.
Republicans: 164-3. Reps. Silvio Conte, Connie Morella, Frank Riggs voted against the resolution.
Independent: 0-1. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) voted against the resolution.

Senate Joint Resolution 2 was approved in the United States Senate on January 12, 1991 by a vote of *52 to 47*.
Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution: John Breaux, Richard Bryan, Al Gore, Bob Graham, Howell Heflin, Bennett Johnston, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Chuck Robb, Richard Shelby.
Republicans: 42-2. Chuck Grassley and Mark Hatfield voted against the resolution.

That is a clear majority in Congress supporting George HW Bush.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. I look at the results of this rather "unscientific" poll and I see that the vast majority of the participants do NOT want these "so-called" strikes on Syria. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is reflected in America as a whole,  as well.
> 
> Yet, I'm out feeding stock today and I'm listening to Sirius and amazingly, I hear the democrats in hearings defending OBarry's position on strikes.
> 
> Looks like we should prepare to be bamboozled, once again. After all, it's for "our own good", don't you know....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
Click to expand...


I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security. 

        Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't. 

         Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.

        Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider Republicans that vote against an act of war against Syria support for Assad, do you consider the Democrats that opposed the war in Iraq supporters of Saddam Hussein?
> 
> Just asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Supporters indeed of letting Saddam remain in power which was indeed the wrong choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so you will know:
> 
> The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub.L. 1021) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.
> 
> House Joint Resolution 77 was approved in the United States House of Representatives on January 12, 1991 by a vote of *250 to 183.*
> Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democrats voted for the resolution.
> Republicans: 164-3. Reps. Silvio Conte, Connie Morella, Frank Riggs voted against the resolution.
> Independent: 0-1. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) voted against the resolution.
> 
> Senate Joint Resolution 2 was approved in the United States Senate on January 12, 1991 by a vote of *52 to 47*.
> Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution: John Breaux, Richard Bryan, Al Gore, Bob Graham, Howell Heflin, Bennett Johnston, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Chuck Robb, Richard Shelby.
> Republicans: 42-2. Chuck Grassley and Mark Hatfield voted against the resolution.
> 
> That is a clear majority in Congress supporting George HW Bush.
Click to expand...


*I never said he did not get a majority of congress. I said that IF, IF, he did not get a majority of from congress he was still willing to launch desert storm! He wanted approval from congress, but not getting that approval would not have stopped him.*

          The only power congress has over the President is funding. It takes a 2/3s majority in both the house and senate to override a presidential veto of a bill. So without a 2/3's majority in both houses against the President, the President can do what he wants.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.
> 
> *  Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!*
Click to expand...



BS.

There was a no-fly zone (enforced by the US) for several years BEFORE there were boots on the ground (1991 to 2003). There were missile strikes for years before there were boots on the ground. Get your facts straight.

So, we somehow get this clown (Assad) out of Syria. He is replaced by radical extremists who want our death. Congratulations rube. One more enemy that is plotting to kill us.

I fought in Vietnam and served 22 years in the Army. How about YOU suiting up and go show them how it's done?


----------



## Hoffstra

RandallFlagg said:


> BS.
> 
> There was a no-fly zone (enforced by the US) for several years BEFORE there were boots on the ground. There were missile strikes for years before there were boots on the ground. Get your facts straight.
> 
> So, we somehow get this clown (Assad) out of Syria. He is replaced by radical extremists who want our death. Congratulations rube. One more enemy that is plotting to kill us.
> 
> I fought in Vietnam and served 22 years in the Army. How about YOU suiting up and go show them how it's done?



indeed, the folks calling for war do so from the comfort of their loveseat while watching Fox News.


----------



## Indofred

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.
> 
> Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!
Click to expand...


Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.
> 
> Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
> Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?
Click to expand...


There is no threat from Syria. This is about a president who puffed his little chest up, ran his mouth and had his bluff called. The world is laughing at Barry. He knows it. This is his reaction. It really IS that simple. Nothing more, nothing less. Barry = incompetent fool. John Kerry = incompetent fool. Martin Dempsey = Incompetent fool. Chuck Hagel = incompetent fool.


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Supporters indeed of letting Saddam remain in power which was indeed the wrong choice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you will know:
> 
> The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub.L. 1021) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.
> 
> House Joint Resolution 77 was approved in the United States House of Representatives on January 12, 1991 by a vote of *250 to 183.*
> Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democrats voted for the resolution.
> Republicans: 164-3. Reps. Silvio Conte, Connie Morella, Frank Riggs voted against the resolution.
> Independent: 0-1. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) voted against the resolution.
> 
> Senate Joint Resolution 2 was approved in the United States Senate on January 12, 1991 by a vote of *52 to 47*.
> Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution: John Breaux, Richard Bryan, Al Gore, Bob Graham, Howell Heflin, Bennett Johnston, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, Chuck Robb, Richard Shelby.
> Republicans: 42-2. Chuck Grassley and Mark Hatfield voted against the resolution.
> 
> That is a clear majority in Congress supporting George HW Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I never said he did not get a majority of congress. I said that IF, IF, he did not get a majority of from congress he was still willing to launch desert storm! He wanted approval from congress, but not getting that approval would not have stopped him.*
> 
> The only power congress has over the President is funding. It takes a 2/3s majority in both the house and senate to override a presidential veto of a bill. So without a 2/3's majority in both houses against the President, the President can do what he wants.
Click to expand...


Point taken. I will support Obama when he gets the majority vote Aye in Congress and something like GHW Bush had before committing an act of war.



> A coalition of forces opposing Iraq's aggression was formed, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the U.S. itself. U.S. Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. was designated to be the commander of the Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf area.
> 
> Although they didn't contribute any forces, Japan and Germany made financial contributions totaling $10 billion and $6.6 billion respectively. U.S. troops represented 73% of the Coalitions 956,600 troops in Iraq.


----------



## Hoffstra

Iraq gassed the Iranians.
...we did not respond.

Iraq gassed the Kurds.
....we did not respond.

We were right then, and we would be right now to not respond.

This is not my war!!!


----------



## antiquity

If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.


----------



## Kondor3

Yeppers... the Arab oil sheiks have money coming out of their asses... let them handle this...


----------



## Indofred

RandallFlagg said:


> There is no threat from Syria. This is about a president who puffed his little chest up, ran his mouth and had his bluff called. The world is laughing at Barry. He knows it. This is his reaction. It really IS that simple. Nothing more, nothing less. Barry = incompetent fool. John Kerry = incompetent fool. Martin Dempsey = Incompetent fool. Chuck Hagel = incompetent fool.



It's a bit hard to argue with that.
Obama has messed up big style on this one.
In doing so, he's made America look like a set of bloody idiots.

This whole thing is about removing Iranian influence from a country that borders Israel and nothing at all to do with U.S. national security.

The big question here is, how much is Obama getting paid to let Americans die for Israel?


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The strike is coming and getting approval in congress should be easy. Obama already had the Senate with him and after few days he will have the House. He only needs 70% of the House Democrats and 33% of the House Republicans to get to 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, *and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.*
Click to expand...


My crystal ball is not nearly as good as yours.


----------



## Kondor3

Indofred said:


> "...*how much is Obama getting paid to let Americans die for Israel?*"








*Smoke 'em if you got 'em...*


----------



## The T

*STILL* my answer is NO.


----------



## The T

Kondor3 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...*how much is Obama getting paid to let Americans die for Israel?*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Smoke 'em if you got 'em...*
Click to expand...

Is that the 'O's' Brand?


----------



## The T

Kondor3 said:


> Yeppers... the Arab oil sheiks have money coming out of their asses... let them handle this...


 
Since Qtar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey support us in an attack on Assad?

I'd tell them to FUCK themselves and they take that money, those weapons WE sold them, and tell THEM to deal with it...WE will sit and watch.


----------



## The T

*Why Qatar Is Quietly Supporting a U.S. Strike in Syria*








*Arab allies of US exasperated by Western stance on Syria* 







NO MORE fighting for these jackholes...THEY have the weapons WE sold them...it's in THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD...LET THEM DEAL WITH IT.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

The T said:


> *STILL* my answer is NO.



I want to change my vote from Nay to F*CKIN' NAY!


----------



## The T

ALL Obama is about is saving FACE...He's pissed...and embarrassed.

Obama/ Mr. President? YOU created this...SHOW SOME BALLS and take a REAL stand. STOP with yer shit...this isn't about your legacy.

Learn It, Live it, KNOW IT.

Bodansky: What If Bashar Didn't Do It? 

FIRESTORM...


----------



## Circe

antiquity said:


> If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.



Problem: Arabs are way too stupid to fly jet planes. I know they HAVE them -- we give them planes, of course they can't build them or anything -- and we train them, but they can't manage them, because they basically have a camel-power culture. 

They can't do modern warfare. Remember the Iraq/Iran war -- hundreds of thousands of 14-year-old boys running at each other across the sands with knives, mainly. And poison gas, of course.


----------



## The T

Circe said:


> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem: Arabs are way too stupid to fly jet planes. I know they HAVE them -- we give them planes, of course they can't build them or anything -- and we train them, but they can't manage them, because they basically have a camel-power culture.
> 
> They can't do modern warfare. Remember the Iraq/Iran war -- hundreds of thousands of 14-year-old boys running at each other across the sands with knives, mainly. And poison gas, of course.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to tell me ALL that training WE gave them in the package failed?


----------



## Circe

The T said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antiquity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone should get involved in this mess it should be the Arab League. They are the one supporting the fall and replacement of the Syrian government, they are the ones supporting the Egyptian military with tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem: Arabs are way too stupid to fly jet planes. I know they HAVE them -- we give them planes, of course they can't build them or anything -- and we train them, but they can't manage them, because they basically have a camel-power culture.
> 
> They can't do modern warfare. Remember the Iraq/Iran war -- hundreds of thousands of 14-year-old boys running at each other across the sands with knives, mainly. And poison gas, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean to tell me ALL that training WE gave them in the package failed?
Click to expand...


Well: I don't mean to be prejudiced -- I bet they are LOTS better at racing camels than we are, and catching donkeys and loading firewood on them. Also butchering goats. Hey, everybody is good at something, right?


----------



## Geaux4it

This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.

This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made

-Geaux


----------



## Circe

Geaux4it said:


> This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.
> 
> This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made
> 
> -Geaux



I've spent a lot of time studying World War I and I don't think these set-ups are about mistakes. They are PLANNED. WWI was no mistake: the Germans spent YEARS setting it up. Then they waited for just the right crisis. There were several almost-good-enough crises when the Germans sent gunboats here and there after the French (they were always going to go after the French). 

Finally some 17-year-old Serb kid shot the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, and that was it, that was their crisis. Germany mobilized and within five weeks were goosestepping over the border into Belgium headed for Paris.

Wait --------------------- how did a Serb shooting an Austrian result in the German marching on the French????????

Because they needed a crisis for an excuse. 

Same deal here.

Bush needed a crisis to take out Saddam, and he was able to make it happen, but he made a botch of it.

Obama and Co. need a crisis to take out Iran.

Syria is their crisis.

Never let a crisis go to waste. Always use it to try to solve some other problem while the public is all upset.

Their real problem here is that they can't so far get us upset. They'll have to stage a faked attack on us. That always works. Let's watch for the faked attack.


----------



## Camp

Geaux4it said:


> This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.
> 
> This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made
> 
> -Geaux



Where is this information about Russian ship movements come from? It doesn't jive with what I have been able to ascertain. It appears that certain types of ships left the area and were replaced with ships that would support the evacuation and protection of the RU civilian population, protection of the port and force protection. Perhaps you have access to information I am unaware of.


----------



## georgephillip

Geaux4it said:


> This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.
> 
> This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made
> 
> -Geaux


"The July Crisis was a diplomatic crisis among the major powers of Europe in the summer of 1914 that led to the First World War. Immediately after Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, a series of diplomatic maneuverings led to an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary to Serbia, and ultimately to war."

July 2014 is four months before our next opportunity to "choose" between the Republican OR Democrat factions of the War Party. 

Every incumbent of the house or senate who votes for war in Syria deserves to be FLUSHED from office a year from now. 

Find an acceptable third party candidate that mirrors your political views and help FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats by the hundreds from DC before they pick the wrong crises to exploit.

July Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Londoner

Here is the plan.

If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.

If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.

If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.

If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.

Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.


----------



## The T

Londoner said:


> Here is the plan.
> 
> If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.
> 
> If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.
> 
> If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.
> 
> If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.
> 
> Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.


 
And THIS IS ALL ABout Obama's LEGACY...HE is a LAME DUCK.


----------



## Kondor3

Londoner said:


> Here is the plan.
> 
> If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.
> 
> If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.
> 
> If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.
> 
> If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.
> 
> Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.



By Jove, I think you've got it !


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Geaux4it said:


> This keeps escalating and the US and Russia are placing chess. We move in 5 destroyers, the Russians counter with same. We send in the Sam Houston ampib ship loaded with marines, Russians call and raise. So we send in the Nimitz and it's group and Russia sends more amphibs.
> 
> This is not a limited anything. It's a prelude to WW3 if one mistake is made
> 
> -Geaux



The sad part is we have the same enemy as Russia does. Radical muslims. They are using Assad to keep AQ down and now we are going to help AQ to keep Assad down. If we really pulled our heads out of our asses we would see that Russia and China have the same f*cking problem we do, muslims.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Camp said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously can't believe those are our only choices. Nor can i believe we need to settle for horrible ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is a vote against authorizing an attack a bad idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a bad idea if you are a politician and your number one priority is to get re-elected. If you vote yes and things go bad, like a big ass war or a bunch of civilian casaulties, etc., you can say this was not what you agreed upon and the administration went further than they were supposed to or were incompetent, etc. If you vote no, and an attack of chemical or bio weapons is launced that inflicts huge casaultie, or worse, is made on Israel and drags the USA into war anyhow, the no vote will become a career ending vote. The no voters will be blamed for all the hell that follows. The only politicians that might survive are the one's who had overwhelming constituent support for the no vote. Provable overwhelming support.
Click to expand...


Nobody's going to be second-guessing this decision after a "big ass" war. Maybe, 10 years later in the aftermath, depending on just how "big ass" it is.


----------



## Indofred

Circe said:


> Obama and Co. need a crisis to take out Iran.
> 
> Syria is their crisis.
> 
> Never let a crisis go to waste. Always use it to try to solve some other problem while the public is all upset.
> 
> Their real problem here is that they can't so far get us upset. They'll have to stage a faked attack on us. That always works. Let's watch for the faked attack.



That could well be.
Israel wants rid of Iran and Syria's exit would be a lovely bonus.
America attacks Syria on behalf of Israel.
Iran supplied or assists Syria.
Iran becomes an enemy and requires attacking.

Result:
A bloody mess in the middle east, a load of dead people in a lot of countries (including American troops) and terrorism used as a weapon of war in America so you can expect  dead Americans on the streets of New York.
In years to come, after mission accomplished, Americans will still be killed in Syria and Iran even though the government says there are no longer any troops there, just advisers.
Israel will have gained a victory as is two major enemies will have been removed with no or very few dead Israelis.
Dead Americas are of no concern to them so that doesn't really matter.

Tell Obama to so shag himself - write to your rep today and tell him no more votes and no more gravy train if he/she supports this stupidity.

yes, Assad is a murdering bastard but quite why Americans should die to get rid of him is a mystery. If Israel wants rid of him - let them try it themselves.
Of course, they won't because Americans can die in their place so why should they bother?


----------



## Tuatara

Found this today

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTUcvKO3js8]Leaked Documents: US Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TemplarKormac

If congress tells Obama no on Syria, then by all intents and purposes, it must be because they are racist.


----------



## Indofred

Pro-Israel groups publicly back U.S. action in Syria | Reuters

Israel's supporters wants America to attack because dead Christians are better than dead Jews.
At least the 'Israel before America'' lot are finally showing their true colours.


----------



## Indofred

Tuatara said:


> Found this today
> 
> Leaked Documents: US Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack - YouTube



I've seen the vast majority of that stuff on a wide range of sites.
Many do get removed, blocked or hacked very quickly.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.
> 
> *  Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS.
> 
> There was a no-fly zone (enforced by the US) for several years BEFORE there were boots on the ground (1991 to 2003). There were missile strikes for years before there were boots on the ground. Get your facts straight.
> 
> So, we somehow get this clown (Assad) out of Syria. He is replaced by radical extremists who want our death. Congratulations rube. One more enemy that is plotting to kill us.
> 
> I fought in Vietnam and served 22 years in the Army. How about YOU suiting up and go show them how it's done?
Click to expand...


*Bush never stated there would be NO boots on the ground, EVER, when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan!*

             The fact that there was a no fly zone is irrelevant. No one said *No boots on the ground" ever with regard to Iraq or Afghanistan!*

            Yes, in the intervening period in between the 1991 Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were strikes on Iraq every year. But no one ever stated emphatically that there would never be any boots on the ground, ground invasion, if events or circumstances warranted such action.

*The purpose of the missile strike is not to remove Assad or have any significant impact on the civil war in Syria. The purpose of the strike is to deter the further use of chemical weapons by Assad!*


----------



## U2Edge

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course it's coming you twit. How the hell else can "politicians" justify their existence? These fat-assed clowns, sitting in their leather bound seats, with their "HON so and so name plates" and their $25,000 gold rolex's - passing judgement on the rest of the world.
> 
> Irony? You bet. Democrats who steadfastly protest any kind of war (only when it comes from the right) are now defending Barry and his cohorts and preaching that "it's our obligation" to be the "protectors" of the world.
> 
> But, like those on the left are fond of telling us now, "It's only a few cruise missiles", and "we aren't putting boots on the ground", and "we aren't trying to Nation build in Syria".
> 
> Bull Sh&t. I heard the same nonsense from Bush.
> 
> But you folks on the left - you go on telling yourselves that your boy has the "best interest" of the US at hand. Go on buying into the propaganda that you are fed. As long as it comes from Barry - it MUST be a Holy Endeavor.
> 
> Sheep. and Barry is the Wolf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.
> 
> Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
> Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?
Click to expand...


           Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments. 

         The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not from the left and didn't vote for Obama in either election. I support the missile strike because its the right policy and necessary for US national security.
> 
> Its beautiful the way the Senate and the House will come together to support this policy. Many on here have said it would be voted down in congress. I told them it wouldn't.
> 
> Will soon have a vote in support of the missile strike, the missile strike itself, and Assad will go back to only using conventional weapons in his war with the rebels. That will be it.
> 
> Also, don't recall Bush ever saying that there would not be boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. There were boots on the ground from the start for both of those wars. Overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam's regime in Iraq with a nation building process to follow in both cases!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
> Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.
> 
> The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!
Click to expand...


They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective

-Geaux


----------



## Indofred

U2Edge said:


> Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.
> 
> The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!



The argument was, Syria is a danger to America's nation security.
You freely admit there is no such danger, thus your government is lying.

Assuming your argument is valid, I assume you'll be calling for America's WMDs to be decommissioned as soon as possible.

No nukes, no nukes.........


----------



## Claudette

A resounding HELL NO. 

Let the Arab League deal with Syria. If they don't want any part of it then then hell with it. 

No reason for us to be in Syria. None at all.


----------



## Circe

Geaux4it said:


> They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective
> 
> -Geaux




You mean....a text like "Stop that! Stop that!"   ?


----------



## JoeB131

Don't worry about it, the Zionists just gave Boehner his marching orders.  

AIPAC Endorses Resolution to Strike Syria, Whatever It Says


----------



## Mac1958

.

I like Ted Cruz' line:

"We're not Al Qaeda's Air Force".

A perfect illustration of the inevitable unintended consequences we never seem to consider when we narcissistically stick our nose in the business of others.

.


----------



## U2Edge

Geaux4it said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the danger Syria poses to the U.S.
> Is it ready to invade new york, bomb the white house or use its massive navy to strike America with missiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.
> 
> The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


                 They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.


----------



## U2Edge

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.
> 
> The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument was, Syria is a danger to America's nation security.
> You freely admit there is no such danger, thus your government is lying.
> 
> Assuming your argument is valid, I assume you'll be calling for America's WMDs to be decommissioned as soon as possible.
> 
> No nukes, no nukes.........
Click to expand...


        No, the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security. The issue is chemical weapons use and that is why the United States is about to strike. 

        The United States has signed the non-proliferation treaty and continues to reduce its stockpile of Nuclear Weapons. At one time decades ago it stood at nearly 30,000 nuclear warheads, but today stands at 7,500 nuclear warheads with only 2,500 of those in active use by the military.


----------



## eflatminor

1) *There is no clear and compelling national interest. * Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective.  Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence.  Bottom line, it's not our war.

2) *Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'*.  Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak.  Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons.  Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.

3) *Victory has not been defined! * No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like.  Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded?  If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.

4) *Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective.*  "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes, he said. Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."

5) *Its hard to keep limited actions limited.* As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."  John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible.  Great, then what?

6) *Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor.*  Why are we ignoring history?  We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.  

7) *The people do not want this war.*  Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.  

8) *If either side wins, it does not help the US.*  Our enemies are killing our enemies.  So what's the problem?


----------



## eflatminor

U2Edge said:


> ...the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security.



Why specifically?  Over 100,000 have died in Syria with conventional weapons but only a fraction have died by chemical weapons.  Conventional weapons are clearly far deadlier than chemical weapons and there is no evidence that their use in Syria increases the likelihood they'll be used in the US.  So again, why specifically is the use of chemical weapons a danger to the US?


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> No, the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security. The issue is chemical weapons use and that is why the United States is about to strike.



Of course that's simple nonsense to persuade the El Stupidos of America to support his war: it's precisely the argument that Bush made for going into Iraq, and that was bogus,too. How could Assad's chemical weapons possibly be a danger to OUR national security? Can't.

So what is REALLY going on? Besides a possible intent to build this into a war on Iran and clean up that situation.

I think warfare is moving into depopulation wars; they have tended to be that type in the Mideast anyway, forever. Turks killing out as many Armenians as they could catch, and all the many examples of depopulations. Poison gas and nukes (and biologicals, too) are obviously depopulation weapons, not really anti-troops weapons, like machine guns. 

For no very obvious reason, we are trying to stop this move. I don't know why, since we have huge stockpiles of depopulation weapons, the most in the world. I don't know why, since the Mideast is grossly overpopulated and it's not our business or our problem anyway. Gross overpopulation and no agriculture to speak of and no economies is what is behind the widespread rioting and civil wars we call the "Arab Spring."


----------



## JoeB131

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I like Ted Cruz' line:
> 
> "We're not Al Qaeda's Air Force".
> 
> A perfect illustration of the inevitable unintended consequences we never seem to consider when we narcissistically stick our nose in the business of others.
> 
> .



Al Qaeda only exists because we stuck our nose into Afghanistan's business.  

You see, those Soviets were teaching women to read, and they couldn't have that. 

Here's where I think we have a problem. 

We look back at Japan and West Germany, countries we defeated in war, but were able to transform into vibrant democracies.  

The thing was, it took major commitments to do that.  

Commitments we are unwilling to make today.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?

The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?

This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.


----------



## JoeB131

TakeAStepBack said:


> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.



Don't worry about it. 

The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.  

So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama. 

Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"


----------



## Circe

TakeAStepBack said:


> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.




Good post: I agree. It's always about something else than we're told. In Bush's case there were no WMD poison gas thingies. In Assad's case, it was probably the rebels using them anyway.  I assume they are lying about all the ha-ha supposed limits they are putting on the war in order to get to start up at all. Once they get there, they'll do whatever they want and not tell us and deny reports.

I am guessing it's about getting in there and then parlaying this into a war on Iran, but I can't know that, of course. *What do you think is the real reason Obama and Co. want their war? *


----------



## TakeAStepBack

JoeB131 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it.
> 
> The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.
> 
> So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.
> 
> Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"
Click to expand...


Your frothy partisanship is noted. However, Obama is the one instigating this attack. Republicans are always happy to go to war. But i thought you voted for hope and change? What happened there, Joe?

And I agree, Israel is playing a large role in the push for US intervention. So the question then goes to republicans that claim Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. What say you?

More than ever before, it's painfully obvious how much the two parties aren't two at all. There is dissenting voices to the status quo within each, but they are one party. Whether D or R.


----------



## JoeB131

TakeAStepBack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Don't worry about it.
> 
> The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.
> 
> So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.
> 
> Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your frothy partisanship is noted. However, Obama is the one instigating this attack. Republicans are always happy to go to war. But i thought you voted for hope and change? What happened there, Joe?
> 
> And I agree, Israel is playing a large role in the push for US intervention. So the question then goes to republicans that claim Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. What say you?
> 
> More than ever before, it's painfully obvious how much the two parties aren't two at all. There is dissenting voices to the status quo within each, but they are one party. Whether D or R.
Click to expand...


Since you get closer to having a discussion than most people do... 

1) Not a "partisan" issue for me.  I'm a registered Republican who voted for the GOP in every election until 2012 when the inmates took over the asylum.  

2) I don't think Obama is "instigating" this in some much as he's painted himself into a corner. After he said he would do something, he has to do it.  

3) The reasons WHY Israel and AIPAC are getting behind this are interesting.  Their main goal is so they can still have a credible case for using force against Iran.   A Syria run by Al Qaeda would be a LOT worse for Israel than one run by the Assad Dynasty, which really hasn't messed with Israel in decades.  

4) The unfortunate thing is when it comes to the Middle East, there is no difference between the two parties.  My question is, why does the GOP insist on placating a constitency that never votes for them.


----------



## HolyHayzoos

We should just wait for all the arabs to kill each other. Anyways, Syria is a waste of good sand. Arabs are useless unless the white man comes and finds oil for them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Londoner said:


> Here is the plan.
> 
> If Obama does nothing, then we blame him.
> 
> If Obama drops bombs, we blame him.
> 
> If Obama doesn't seek Congressional approval, we blame him.
> 
> If Obama seeks congressional approval, we blame him.
> 
> Remember: this isn't about Syria. Everything we do, we do against Obama.



Go suck an egg, you Obamunist fucktard.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Don't worry about it, the Zionists just gave Boehner his marching orders.
> 
> AIPAC Endorses Resolution to Strike Syria, Whatever It Says



Seig Heil!

And the Nazis seep out of the sewers. Comrade Stalin, your namesake, butchered more Jews than Hitler did - must be why you love and emulate him.


----------



## Tuatara

TakeAStepBack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it.
> 
> The Zionists have ordered us to take out Assad.
> 
> So the REpublicans are getting on line behind Obama.
> 
> Couldn't get behind fixing the economy or the health care system, but dammit, Israel says "Jump" and the GOP says, "How High?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your frothy partisanship is noted. However, Obama is the one instigating this attack. Republicans are always happy to go to war. But i thought you voted for hope and change? What happened there, Joe?
> 
> And I agree, Israel is playing a large role in the push for US intervention. So the question then goes to republicans that claim Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. What say you?
> 
> More than ever before, it's painfully obvious how much the two parties aren't two at all. There is dissenting voices to the status quo within each, but they are one party. Whether D or R.
Click to expand...

When it comes to US foreign policy there is no such thing as a liberal President.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Al Qaeda only exists because we stuck our nose into Afghanistan's business.



Comrade Stalin, you're a stupid guy - we all know this. But Al Qaeda is an outgrowth of the Wahhabi cult of Islam. It dates back to about 1800.



> You see, those Soviets were teaching women to read, and they couldn't have that.
> 
> Here's where I think we have a problem.



Yes Comrade, you Soviets were the saviors of the world.   



> We look back at Japan and West Germany, countries we defeated in war, but were able to transform into vibrant democracies.
> 
> The thing was, it took major commitments to do that.
> 
> Commitments we are unwilling to make today.



We are unwilling to defeat anyone. Defeat is absolute. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were defeated. Defeat is the condition where the enemy is no longer willing to fight.


----------



## bodecea

CIA sending arms to the rebels....a civil war....why is this sounding more and more like Viet Nam Part II?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tuatara said:


> When it comes to US foreign policy there is no such thing as a liberal President.



???

Every president post-Reagan has had a leftist, one world view. There is no such thing as a conservative president.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> CIA sending arms to the rebels....a civil war....why is this sounding more and more like Viet Nam Part II?



Vietnam was a proxy war. Syria could be the real deal - head to head with the Bear.


----------



## g5000

"War with Syria".

This entire topic is based on a completely false premise.

There will be no invasion, there will be no boots on the ground, there will be no war.  A few sailors will push some buttons and call it a day.

If you are calling that a "war", you have guzzled an Olympic-sized swimming pool of piss and are one credulous fool.


----------



## U2Edge

eflatminor said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why specifically?  Over 100,000 have died in Syria with conventional weapons but only a fraction have died by chemical weapons.  Conventional weapons are clearly far deadlier than chemical weapons and there is no evidence that their use in Syria increases the likelihood they'll be used in the US.  So again, why specifically is the use of chemical weapons a danger to the US?
Click to expand...


1. The United States have vital national security interest all over the world. You would have to go back to the 19th century to find a time when US vital national security interest was just about what was inside the borders of the country.

2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their use can erode the conventional military advantages that the United States has. Anything that makes United States defenses weaker, threatens US National Security. 

3. No response to Assad's use of the weapons will make it more likely they will be used again in Syria and elsewhere, increasing the likely hood of proliferation, and the the likely hood that the men and women of the United States armed forces will have these terrible weapons used against them. 

4. Chemical Weapons use in Syria has proved more deadly than conventional weapons which is not a surprise. The facts: 1,469 Syrians were killed in the early hours of August 21, 2013. That is by far the highest death toll for any day in the Syrian conflict. It is higher than any single day in the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On average over the past year, 6,000 people are killed in Syria per month. In just a few hours on August 21, 2013, 1,469 people were murdered. If the weapons fired had been conventional explosives, the death toll would have *been LESS THAN 10% of what was seen with chemical weapons!*


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Well then, it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting the rebels funded by Qatar and Saudi A. who used chemical weapons in April and claimed again in August.


----------



## Londoner

This is exactly what happened with Kennedy and Vietnam.

Kennedy was a young democrat who didn't want to appear soft on Communism. So he was coaxed into very limited action by the hawks on the Right just as Obama was coaxed by McCain and Graham. (Of course Kennedy later made the mistake of trying to reverse course in Vietnam and rebel against the CIA and other components of the military industrial complex)

But the pattern is clear: a naive democratic president finds himself in a position where he thinks it is politically necessary to play ball with the Hawks. Then the situation grows beyond his control and we find ourself in a civil war without an end game.

Washington can't fix civil wars, no matter how many innocent soldiers and trillions of dollars it sacrifices. News Flash to Republicans: Washington isn't all powerful, despite your belief that our big government bureaucrats can turn Iraq into a sinning beacon of democracy .

Same old story. Every second of every day you accuse a Democratic president of being weak on national defense. Said President tries to escape this charge by dropping bombs. Then ... the U.S. finds itself in an un-winnable war where the only consequence is a loss of lives and money ... and the increased likelihood of blowback.


----------



## g5000

TakeAStepBack said:


> Well then, it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting the rebels funded by Qatar and Saudi A. *who used chemical weapons in April *and claimed again in August.



Please provide evidence the rebels used chemical weapons in April.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post: I agree. It's always about something else than we're told. In Bush's case there were no WMD poison gas thingies. In Assad's case, it was probably the rebels using them anyway.  I assume they are lying about all the ha-ha supposed limits they are putting on the war in order to get to start up at all. Once they get there, they'll do whatever they want and not tell us and deny reports.
> 
> I am guessing it's about getting in there and then parlaying this into a war on Iran, but I can't know that, of course. *What do you think is the real reason Obama and Co. want their war? *
Click to expand...


           Thank God there were not stocks of chemicals that Saddam could use against US troops and other countries in the region when the United States invaded in March 2003. *The goal of the United States since the end of the 1991 war was PREVENTING SADDAM from ever obtaining such weapons again. That means acting against him before he has such weapons to use against the US military. Only a fool would wait until Saddam has some nice little stock pile that he could slime US troops with before invading to remove him from power. The fact that there was intelligence that he had this stuff is evidence that the United States was LATE in acting decisively to deal with Saddam!*


              The United States is making the push to act in Syria now because 1,469 people were gassed by the Syrian government in the early morning hours of August 21, 2013. The attack is the first large scale use of WMD in a quarter of a century. Failing to respond to this will increase proliferation of chemical weapons which threatens United States military capabilities and national security interest around the world. The world and the United States will be less safe in a world where the possession and use of chemical weapons is spreading, which is what you will have if no response is made to this attack.


----------



## g5000

TakeAStepBack said:


> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.



The only lie here is yours.  The UN does not blame the rebels for the April attack.  That is a lie.


----------



## g5000

At no time has the United Nations said the rebels in Syria perpetrated a chemical weapons attack.  Anyone who says such a thing is lying through their teeth.

And now there is a report of the defection of a member of the Syrian regime who has brought evidence out of Syria with him that the earlier attack this year was made by Assad:



> Abdeltawwab Shahrour, head of the forensic medicine committee in Aleppo, claims there was a chemical attack in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, on March 19, said Istanbul-based opposition coalition spokeswoman Sarah Karkour.
> 
> Mr Shahrour, who has defected to Turkey, has documents proving the attack took place and eyewitness accounts from police authorities that contradicte the administration's version of events, a second opposition official said.



Syria Defector 'Exposes Assad Chemical Attack'


I would caution against stating anything as fact until actual evidence is provided.


----------



## U2Edge

eflatminor said:


> 1) *There is no clear and compelling national interest. * Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective.  Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence.  Bottom line, it's not our war.
> 
> 2) *Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'*.  Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak.  Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons.  Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 3) *Victory has not been defined! * No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like.  Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded?  If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.
> 
> 4) *Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective.*  "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:
> 
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
> Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes, he said. Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."
> 
> 5) *Its hard to keep limited actions limited.* As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."  John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible.  Great, then what?
> 
> 6) *Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor.*  Why are we ignoring history?  We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.
> 
> 7) *The people do not want this war.*  Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.
> 
> 8) *If either side wins, it does not help the US.*  Our enemies are killing our enemies.  So what's the problem?



1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.

2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!

3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.

4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!

5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely. 

6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike. 

7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!

8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.


----------



## U2Edge

Londoner said:


> This is exactly what happened with Kennedy and Vietnam.
> 
> Kennedy was a young democrat who didn't want to appear soft on Communism. So he was coaxed into very limited action by the hawks on the Right just as Obama was coaxed by McCain and Graham. (Of course Kennedy later made the mistake of trying to reverse course in Vietnam and rebel against the CIA and other components of the military industrial complex)
> 
> But the pattern is clear: a naive democratic president finds himself in a position where he thinks it is politically necessary to play ball with the Hawks. Then the situation grows beyond his control and we find ourself in a civil war without an end game.
> 
> Washington can't fix civil wars, no matter how many innocent soldiers and trillions of dollars it sacrifices. News Flash to Republicans: Washington isn't all powerful, despite your belief that our big government bureaucrats can turn Iraq into a sinning beacon of democracy .
> 
> Same old story. Every second of every day you accuse a Democratic president of being weak on national defense. Said President tries to escape this charge by dropping bombs. Then ... the U.S. finds itself in an un-winnable war where the only consequence is a loss of lives and money ... and the increased likelihood of blowback.



Kennedy and most democrats were hawks on national security back then. They were right to intervene to save South Vietnam and South Vietnam would have been saved from the Communist if Congress had not blocked all the funding for US military operations in 1973 and cut all the aid to South Vietnam. That made it easy for the North Vietnamese , who were heavily supported by the Russians and Chinese to role through the country two years later. Had the United States not abandoned South Vietnam, it would still be an independent country today, likely as prosperous as South Korea.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

g5000 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting the rebels funded by Qatar and Saudi A. *who used chemical weapons in April *and claimed again in August.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide evidence the rebels used chemical weapons in April.
Click to expand...


"Proof"? You mean like the proof being touted that it was Assad?

UN's Carla Del Ponte says there is evidence rebels 'may have used sarin' in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent



> Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.
> 
> Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated, Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.
> 
> This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities, she added.
> 
> Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

g5000 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only lie here is yours.  The UN does not blame the rebels for the April attack.  That is a lie.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.....



> Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated, Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.
> 
> This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities, she added.
> 
> Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.


----------



## Circe

g5000 said:


> "War with Syria".
> 
> This entire topic is based on a completely false premise.
> 
> There will be no invasion, there will be no boots on the ground, there will be no war.  A few sailors will push some buttons and call it a day.
> 
> If you are calling that a "war", you have guzzled an Olympic-sized swimming pool of piss and are one credulous fool.



1) You have NO idea what will actually happen. All governments minimize the plans in their propaganda. Easy! Quick! Short! Over in a couple days!!

Yeah, sure. That really happens.......

Never.

2) Of course it's a war: if the Syrians stood off Baltimore harbor and "pushed some buttons" that sent a lot of Cruise missiles at Baltimore and Fort McHenry and the various and several military installations within range, such as the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters, my guess is we would call that a war.

Be sure, so will the Syrians call it a war. Who knows? They might even resent it.

I'm amazed by how so many people think we can go on forEVER bombing and shelling other countries and no one ever ever ever will bomb or shell back at us.

My guess is that someday, someone will find a way to retaliate.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This isn't about the use of chemical weapons. The way it's shaping up, both the rebels and Assad have probably used them to some degree. What this is really about is Qatar and Saudi Arabia's wish to topple Assad and install a puppet that will allow them their natural gas pipeline. The US, isn't in for the toppling of Assad fearing that this may give the country over to Jihadists. So, the answer is to arm the opposition, let them weaken themselves and Assad, who will hopefully give in to Qatar demands. OR wait fo th erebels to weed themselves thin of the extremists and then topple Assad and install a puppet that will give Qatar the access it desires. Which undermines Russian energy influence.

It has nothing to do with chemical weapons. Or we'd have been in there earlier when they were used and we knew about it.


----------



## g5000

TakeAStepBack said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, which, they have, and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?
> 
> The REAL conversation is WHY the push now? Why help the rebels who the UN blames for the April attack? Why isnt this administration telling the full story? Why the omission of the UN findings and the sudden push now?
> 
> This has nothing to do with chemical weapons use. That's a lie. If you dont see that, you're either blind or dont care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only lie here is yours.  The UN does not blame the rebels for the April attack.  That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but *not yet incontrovertible proof *of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,&#8221; Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.
> 
> &#8220;This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,&#8221; she added.
> 
> Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I have bolded and enlarged the part to which you seem blind.  And that is Del Ponte, not the UN's position.  Your claims the UN said the rebels perpetrated a chemical attack are lies.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And there is also no proof that Assad used chemical weapons. You're splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. A UN diplomat close to the situation is saying it was rebels. The "not yet incontrovertible proof" is to whether or not it was sarin gas.

Your reading comprehension sucks, dude.

You have no proof it was Assad. There is, with UN investigators support, evidence it was the rebels. The question around the April use is whether or not it was sarin gas.

Even still, this isn't about chemical weapons or we would have acted already.

it's about Qatar, who has dumped 3 billion into Assad's opposition over this conflict because they want their pipeline.


----------



## Circe

TakeAStepBack said:


> Even still, this isn't about chemical weapons or we would have acted already.
> 
> it's about Qatar, who has dumped 3 billion into Assad's opposition over this conflict because they want their pipeline.





You think it's about a natural gas pipeline the Russkies are opposing via Assad; I think it's about getting a war started to clean up the Iran problem; or maybe Turkey's refugee problem --

The one thing no one seems to believe is that it has anything to do with the pile of unlikely lies the administration is telling.

We're all trying to figure out what it is REALLY about.



If we don't know
We shouldn't go.


----------



## g5000

TakeAStepBack said:


> And there is also no proof that Assad used chemical weapons.



I have not made any such claim.



TakeAStepBack said:


> You're splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. A UN diplomat close to the situation is saying it was rebels. The "not yet incontrovertible proof" is to whether or not it was sarin gas.
> 
> Your reading comprehension sucks, dude.



Again, at no point, at no time, has the UN blamed the rebels for a chemical weapons attack as you claimed.  You lied, period.


----------



## Redfish

Just one question:  why is it worse to kill someone with poison gas than to kill someone with a bullet of a bomb?

the person is just as dead either way.

Why don't we care about the 100,000 that have been killed by bullets and bombs?

this reminds me of the hate crime logic--------its worse if I kill you because I don't like your religion than if I kill you to steal your money-------WTF ?


----------



## g5000

TakeAStepBack said:


> There is still no compelling evidence that Assad's regime used chem weapons. It's the wrong question entirely. If the rebels used them, *which, they have,* and there is no evidence to support Assad has used them, what exactly are we even talking about?



A claim not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Your arguments collapse since they are based entirely on a false premise.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Yawn. Ok, moving on from a hairsplittingly stupid debate with G5000, it's far mor elikely it was the rebels than Assad. 

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline? « TheTradingReport



> Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won&#8217;t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been &#8220;jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime&#8221;?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.





> As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian&#8230;
> 
> In 2009 &#8211; the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria &#8211; Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter&#8217;s North field, contiguous with Iran&#8217;s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets &#8211; albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad&#8217;s rationale was &#8220;to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe&#8217;s top supplier of natural gas.&#8221;
> 
> Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 &#8211; just as Syria&#8217;s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo &#8211; and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
> 
> The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a &#8220;direct slap in the face&#8221; to Qatar&#8217;s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that &#8220;whatever regime comes after&#8221; Assad, it will be&#8220;completely&#8221; in Saudi Arabia&#8217;s hands and will &#8220;not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports&#8221;, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United States is launching a limited missile strike to deter them from using Chemical Weapons again. The United States is NOT launching any sort of an invasion to topple the regime. Also, launching 300 cruise missiles would only be a fraction of the amount of munitions Syria has expended so far in its war against the rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
Click to expand...


Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?


----------



## g5000

TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.

Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid.  Simple as that.


----------



## Redfish

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?
Click to expand...


none at all.   Oh, but it might just kick off a total war in the mid east.

obozo, McCrazy, Gramnesty, and heintz-kerry are all full of shit.  There is no american interest at risk in the syrian civll war.

and who the fuck do we think we are that we should pick winners and losers.   No wonder much of the world hates us.


----------



## g5000

TooTall said:


> Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?



It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.

A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.


----------



## Uncensored2008

g5000 said:


> TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.
> 
> Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid.  Simple as that.



Regardless of the chemical weapons, we have on one side, Assad - leader of the Soviet based Ba'ath party. True to Stalinist roots, hostile to the West, to any sort of liberty, Vassals of the USSR since the time of Stalin - who have full support of Putin and his re-emerged Evil Empire. (Ronnie took out the Soviets - Obammy reinstated them...)

On the other side, we have Al Qaeda, represented by Obama's Muslim Brotherhood. 

Is America going to stand idle while Obama sends us to war against Russia on behalf of his Muslim Brotherhood?


----------



## Camp

TooTall said:


> Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?



The weapons will not be targeted. The airforce and air defense sytems will be the targets. Without those assests the Syrian government will be pushed into a more defensive posture and the rebel forces will restart their offensive posture. With "clear skys" overhead, drones can be used to assist the moderate rebels by taking out al Qaeda affiliate targets. That is why a few days of punishing strikes have been turned into a 60 or 90 day operation. Hidden in there may be punishing blows to Hezbolla as a favour to Israel.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

g5000 said:


> TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.
> 
> Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid.  Simple as that.





You just love splitting hairs, even as you make things up as you go. The UN diplomat is the one who rested the guilt on the rebels. This attack happened way earlier this year. All of a sudden, now the US is saying, after the last attack (which with interview evidence claims it was the rebels supplied by Saudi's...the rebels own admission) that we can't allow chemical weapons to be used. But there is no proof at all on who used them, what was used and the reports are conflicting from both sides.

IF this was about chemical weapons used, we would have gotten invlolved before now. They were used in two separate incidents earlier this year and we stood by. NOW, suddenly, we have to act? Only a fool would believe this is about chemical weapons.


----------



## Camp

TakeAStepBack said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.
> 
> Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid.  Simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just love splitting hairs, even as you make things up as you go. The UN diplomat is the one who rested the guilt on the rebels. This attack happened way earlier this year. All of a sudden, now the US is saying, after the last attack (which with interview evidence claims it was the rebels supplied by Saudi's...the rebels own admission) that we can't allow chemical weapons to be used. But there is no proof at all on who used them, what was used and the reports are conflicting from both sides.
> 
> IF this was about chemical weapons used, we would have gotten invlolved before now. They were used in two separate incidents earlier this year and we stood by. NOW, suddenly, we have to act? Only a fool would believe this is about chemical weapons.
Click to expand...


We did get involved. That is what the Red Line was all about. In addition we began arming specific moderate rebel forces.


----------



## Katzndogz

Once the war for obama's vanity starts no one knows what will happen.  

Syria threatens to bomb Jordan, Israel, turkey if attacked | Ya Libnan | World News Live from Lebanon

Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his office in Damascus on Tuesday of the repercussions of a U.S. attack on Syria. He said Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also at Syria&#8217;s neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they take part in any U.S.-led operation.

&#8220;Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond.&#8221;

Isn't a regional war worth it to save obama's face?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> The weapons will not be targeted. The airforce and air defense sytems will be the targets. Without those assests the Syrian government will be pushed into a more defensive posture and the rebel forces will restart their offensive posture. With "clear skys" overhead, drones can be used to _*assist the moderate rebels by taking out al Qaeda affiliate targets.*_ That is why a few days of punishing strikes have been turned into a 60 or 90 day operation. Hidden in there may be punishing blows to Hezbolla as a favour to Israel.



You make no sense.

How are the rebels helped if we take them out as targets?

You DO grasp that the two sides here are Assad and his Communist Ba'ath party, and Al Qaeda rebels - right? Obama is suggesting we fight FOR Al Qaeda - as Clinton did in Kosovo.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Camp said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack, you claimed the rebels used chemical weapons, and from there concluded this therefore cannot be about chemical weapons.
> 
> Since your argument rests on a false premise rooted in wishful thinking, your conclusions are not valid.  Simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just love splitting hairs, even as you make things up as you go. The UN diplomat is the one who rested the guilt on the rebels. This attack happened way earlier this year. All of a sudden, now the US is saying, after the last attack (which with interview evidence claims it was the rebels supplied by Saudi's...the rebels own admission) that we can't allow chemical weapons to be used. But there is no proof at all on who used them, what was used and the reports are conflicting from both sides.
> 
> IF this was about chemical weapons used, we would have gotten invlolved before now. They were used in two separate incidents earlier this year and we stood by. NOW, suddenly, we have to act? Only a fool would believe this is about chemical weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did get involved. That is what the Red Line was all about. In addition we began arming specific moderate rebel forces.
Click to expand...


We began a CIA funded program to train assets of the rebels in Jordan. We never armed any rebels because of the fears of who we would be arming. We did, however, provide non-weapon assets to rebels (web gear, NV, med supplies, etc..) as far back as last year.

What "red line"? The chemical weapons were supposedly used earlier this year. We dont know who used them and according to the UN's Del Ponte, it was the rebels who used "something". Based on interviews with victims, medical staff and first hand witnesses.

That's not involved. This isn't about that stupid chemical weapons of mass destruction official narrative. This is geopolitics. You're being fed the emotional narrative to get on the ship. This is about ally interests, energy, money and religion.


----------



## Circe

Katzndogz said:


> Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his office in Damascus on Tuesday of the repercussions of a U.S. attack on Syria. He said Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also at Syrias neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they take part in any U.S.-led operation.
> 
> Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen, he said. We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond.



Yeah.................interesting quote from yesterday. 

Why are we all assuming that the Syrians will just sit there and take it, with no military response whatsoever? We have bases in Jordan and Turkey, and there is always Israel.

Does everyone here think Syrian forces will not reply at all if we fire at them?


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referring to "300 cruise missiles" as if you got that number from somewhere, but you just --- pulled it out of the air, didn't you?
> 
> You don't know what is going to happen. No one does.
> 
> Hopefully nothing.
> 
> You don't know what the point is, if we did make an attack. A punitive small raid? A punitive big raid? A raid to impair enemy capacity? A decapitation strike? Shock and Awe? An escalation into Iran? You don't know because you aren't in the White House or the Pentagon. How do you know there wouldn't be an invasion to topple the regime? There was with Iraq II.
> 
> You don't know how much and which munitions Syria has expended.
> 
> Not that it matters. You seem to suppose we ought to shoot as much at them as they shot at each other? Does that make ANY sense??
> 
> No.
> 
> None of this matters, if we can stop the attack on Syria. Not that I care a penny about Syria, of course, but I do care about not going on and ON with all these long losing forever wars.  Especially a new one with Iran, which is presumably the point of any attack on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Destroyers have about 90 Cruise Missiles each. Five have been deployed for the Syria operation. I assume though they won't launching everything they have. In addition, there will be Air Launched Cruise Missiles from aircraft like the B-2, B-1.
> 
> There were many Cruise Missile Strikes on Iraq during the 1990s, often in the 200 to 400 range over a period of hours.
> 
> I'm guessing that could be close to the number and think that is the number that will send the right message.
> 
> I know that the strike will be limited first because that is what the President ask for, 2nd because that what would do the most good considering the situation in Syria. Three it won't go beyond this because no one in the region wants a further esculation. A further esculation beyond this would  not be in anyones interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?
Click to expand...


            Assad is in the middle of a civil war, a struggle for the survival of his regime. There are lots of military assets he can't move around without damaging the Syrian military's position on the battlefield against the rebels. There are all kinds of military targets a missile strike can still hit. 

            If Assad hid everything he has underground or in schools, the rebels would be on the way to controlling the entire country.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his office in Damascus on Tuesday of the repercussions of a U.S. attack on Syria. He said Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also at Syrias neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they take part in any U.S.-led operation.
> 
> Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen, he said. We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.................interesting quote from yesterday.
> 
> Why are we all assuming that the Syrians will just sit there and take it, with no military response whatsoever? We have bases in Jordan and Turkey, and there is always Israel.
> 
> Does everyone here think Syrian forces will not reply at all if we fire at them?
Click to expand...



           Israel has launched three separate strikes against Syria this year already. Assad did nothing in response. His military is busy dealing with the rebels in the country. They have their hands filled with the rebels. With rebel forces just a few miles from the city center of Damascus, Assad can't afford to be sending military assets out of the country to attack someone else.


----------



## Katzndogz

Just because obama has no plan, it doesn't mean that no one has a plan.  Are the Russians moving in their own ships because they don't have a plan?   Is Syria preparing to bomb Turkey, Israel and Jordan because they don't have a plan?

The only country that's barging around completely clueless is the United States.  Could obama be arrested in Russia as a war criminal?   That would be the most peaceful way out of the mess he created.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weapons will not be targeted. The airforce and air defense sytems will be the targets. Without those assests the Syrian government will be pushed into a more defensive posture and the rebel forces will restart their offensive posture. With "clear skys" overhead, drones can be used to _*assist the moderate rebels by taking out al Qaeda affiliate targets.*_ That is why a few days of punishing strikes have been turned into a 60 or 90 day operation. Hidden in there may be punishing blows to Hezbolla as a favour to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make no sense.
> 
> How are the rebels helped if we take them out as targets?
> 
> You DO grasp that the two sides here are Assad and his Communist Ba'ath party, and Al Qaeda rebels - right? Obama is suggesting we fight FOR Al Qaeda - as Clinton did in Kosovo.
Click to expand...


There are over 50 rebel groups and many of them are fighting each other as well as the government forces. Two of the groups referred to in the media as "al Qaeda" are actually al Qaeda affiliates. They do not always get along wtih each other and often fight each other. Everyone knows that when the Assad government falls these groups will be fighting for control and position in the new government that could take a very long time to form. al Qaeda is a specific organization. You do know that, right? They were not present in Kosovo.


----------



## Circe

U2Edge said:


> Israel has launched three separate strikes against Syria this year already. Assad did nothing in response. His military is busy dealing with the rebels in the country. They have their hands filled with the rebels. With rebel forces just a few miles from the city center of Damascus, Assad can't afford to be sending military assets out of the country to attack someone else.




Are you saying you don't believe Syria will shoot back? That if we attack them with your 300 cruise missiles, they will just sit their quietly and take it? No reply of any kind?

I don't know about that........


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> Just because obama has no plan, it doesn't mean that no one has a plan.  Are the Russians moving in their own ships because they don't have a plan?   Is Syria preparing to bomb Turkey, Israel and Jordan because they don't have a plan?
> 
> The only country that's barging around completely clueless is the United States.  Could obama be arrested in Russia as a war criminal?   That would be the most peaceful way out of the mess he created.



They won't go after Israel. But Jordan is a weak nation that could be easily attacked, with Russian air support, wiping out the U.S. bases and making a point to the USA about intervention.

Attacking Turkey would require a NATO response, and Russia ain't that stupid.


----------



## Katzndogz

The individuals who make up moderate groups or al quaeda affiliate groups are fluid.  They go from one group to the other depending what they are offered.


----------



## Circe

We're so used to hitting countries that have no weapons at all except some old scimitars from a century ago, and they are incapable of replying to our fire in any way.

I wonder if that will go on forever or if someday some country might think of a way to attack us back.

Syria, for instance.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> The individuals who make up moderate groups or al quaeda affiliate groups are fluid.  They go from one group to the other depending what they are offered.



They don't really change groups, the administration and the propaganda corpse of the MSM simply change description of the groups, depending on whether we are supporting or killing them, that particular week.


----------



## g5000

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weapons will not be targeted. The airforce and air defense sytems will be the targets. Without those assests the Syrian government will be pushed into a more defensive posture and the rebel forces will restart their offensive posture. With "clear skys" overhead, drones can be used to _*assist the moderate rebels by taking out al Qaeda affiliate targets.*_ That is why a few days of punishing strikes have been turned into a 60 or 90 day operation. Hidden in there may be punishing blows to Hezbolla as a favour to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make no sense.
> 
> How are the rebels helped if we take them out as targets?
> 
> You DO grasp that the two sides here are Assad and his Communist Ba'ath party, and Al Qaeda rebels - right? Obama is suggesting we fight FOR Al Qaeda - as Clinton did in Kosovo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are over 50 rebel groups and many of them are fighting each other as well as the government forces. Two of the groups referred to in the media as "al Qaeda" are actually al Qaeda affiliates. They do not always get along wtih each other and often fight each other. Everyone knows that when the Assad government falls these groups will be fighting for control and position in the new government that could take a very long time to form. al Qaeda is a specific organization. You do know that, right? They were not present in Kosovo.
Click to expand...


Stop that! Facts are not wanted here!  All the people fighting Assad, and all the people gassed, are Muslim terrorists, dammit!  The voices in my head said so.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> There are over 50 rebel groups and many of them are fighting each other as well as the government forces. Two of the groups referred to in the media as "al Qaeda" are actually al Qaeda affiliates. They do not always get along wtih each other and often fight each other. Everyone knows that when the Assad government falls these groups will be fighting for control and position in the new government that could take a very long time to form. al Qaeda is a specific organization. You do know that, right? They were not present in Kosovo.



Islam is a religion based on violence and war. If Muslims cannot kill infidels, they kill each other. Of course the factions will fight and slaughter each other - it is the way of Muhammad.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOBGLIV5TY]From Yugoslavia to Libya: KLA Links to Al Qaeda - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Circe

McCain this morning said he won't vote for the war plan --- he wants something open-ended and more aggressive --- and now Obama is saying in Sweden at a press conference that he doesn't need congressional approval after all ---

I guess his new vote count isn't looking too good.

This will probably go back and forth for days.


----------



## Circe

A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!

Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??

Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individuals who make up moderate groups or al quaeda affiliate groups are fluid.  They go from one group to the other depending what they are offered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't really change groups, the administration and the propaganda corpse of the MSM simply change description of the groups, depending on whether we are supporting or killing them, that particular week.
Click to expand...


You really don't know what you are talking about. You are shooting from the hip, but your pistol shoots blanks. Over 10 years since 9/11 and it is obvious you don't know what al Qaeda means, who they are or what they are about.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because obama has no plan, it doesn't mean that no one has a plan.  Are the Russians moving in their own ships because they don't have a plan?   Is Syria preparing to bomb Turkey, Israel and Jordan because they don't have a plan?
> 
> The only country that's barging around completely clueless is the United States.  Could obama be arrested in Russia as a war criminal?   That would be the most peaceful way out of the mess he created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They won't go after Israel. But Jordan is a weak nation that could be easily attacked, with Russian air support, wiping out the U.S. bases and making a point to the USA about intervention.
> 
> Attacking Turkey would require a NATO response, and Russia ain't that stupid.
Click to expand...


Are you certain that a NATO response isn't what Syria would be after?   If what they are looking for is a wide regional war to drag in Iran, a NATO response would be exactly what they intend.  Don't count on a NATO response either.   This would be obama's baby and they might elect to find a way out.

What isn't considered is that just because the US has no plan, others are making plans of their own.   Americans just aren't even considering that as a possibility.  obama truly believes he will fire a couple of hundred missiles into Syria and nothing will happen.  No one would dare to retaliate against him, he's black.  No one wants to be called a racist for retaliating against a black man.


----------



## Kondor3

Uncensored2008 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because obama has no plan, it doesn't mean that no one has a plan.  Are the Russians moving in their own ships because they don't have a plan?   Is Syria preparing to bomb Turkey, Israel and Jordan because they don't have a plan?
> 
> The only country that's barging around completely clueless is the United States.  Could obama be arrested in Russia as a war criminal?   That would be the most peaceful way out of the mess he created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They won't go after Israel. But Jordan is a weak nation that could be easily attacked, with Russian air support, wiping out the U.S. bases and making a point to the USA about intervention.
> 
> Attacking Turkey would require a NATO response, and Russia ain't that stupid.
Click to expand...


Russia ain't that stupid, to attack *US* bases, either...

The second they do, US popular support for Fearless Leader will skyrocket into the 90s...

And we will have a war that the Russians are neither ready for, nor looking to trigger...


----------



## eflatminor

U2Edge said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the argument is that chemical weapons use by Assad is a danger to US National Security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why specifically?  Over 100,000 have died in Syria with conventional weapons but only a fraction have died by chemical weapons.  Conventional weapons are clearly far deadlier than chemical weapons and there is no evidence that their use in Syria increases the likelihood they'll be used in the US.  So again, why specifically is the use of chemical weapons a danger to the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The United States have vital national security interest all over the world. You would have to go back to the 19th century to find a time when US vital national security interest was just about what was inside the borders of the country.
Click to expand...


That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  It's simply an unsupported statement.  "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason.  Again, I asked for specificity.  You gave us a bullshit talking point.



> 2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their use can erode the conventional military advantages that the United States has. Anything that makes United States defenses weaker, threatens US National Security.



And big bombs aren't?  Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages".  Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military.  Please.

Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.



> 3. No response to Assad's use of the weapons will make it more likely they will be used again in Syria and elsewhere, increasing the likely hood of proliferation, and the the likely hood that the men and women of the United States armed forces will have these terrible weapons used against them.



Evidence?  Link?  Anything?

Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments.  Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US.  Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.  

So far, that's one big fat fail...



> 4. Chemical Weapons use in Syria has proved more deadly than conventional weapons which is not a surprise. The facts: 1,469 Syrians were killed in the early hours of August 21, 2013. That is by far the highest death toll for any day in the Syrian conflict. It is higher than any single day in the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On average over the past year, 6,000 people are killed in Syria per month. In just a few hours on August 21, 2013, 1,469 people were murdered. If the weapons fired had been conventional explosives, the death toll would have *been LESS THAN 10% of what was seen with chemical weapons!*



So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons?  How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?  

Hint:  It isn't.

Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.

Fail again.

Wow dude, that's just sad.  You want to get us into another war, we get it.  But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so.  What you put forth is just pathetic.


----------



## Circe

Katzndogz said:


> ...others are making plans of their own.   Americans just aren't even considering that as a possibility.  obama truly believes he will fire a couple of hundred missiles into Syria and nothing will happen.  No one would dare to retaliate against him, he's black.  No one wants to be called a racist for retaliating against a black man.




I am not perfectly certain Syria shares the PC point of view that because he's black he gets to shell other countries with impunity.

It could be only in the U.S. that people think so crazy as that. It's okay if blacks do crimes --- because they're black! So it's okay!!


----------



## TemplarKormac

"So, are we about to go to war over the use of weapons now in Syria that the liberals SWORE George W. Bush was lying about?"

-Alfonzo Rachel


----------



## eflatminor

U2Edge said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) *There is no clear and compelling national interest. * Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective.  Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence.  Bottom line, it's not our war.
> 
> 2) *Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'*.  Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak.  Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons.  Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 3) *Victory has not been defined! * No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like.  Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded?  If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.
> 
> 4) *Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective.*  "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:
> 
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
> Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes, he said. Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."
> 
> 5) *Its hard to keep limited actions limited.* As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."  John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible.  Great, then what?
> 
> 6) *Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor.*  Why are we ignoring history?  We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.
> 
> 7) *The people do not want this war.*  Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.
> 
> 8) *If either side wins, it does not help the US.*  Our enemies are killing our enemies.  So what's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.
> 
> 2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!
> 
> 3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.
> 
> 4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!
> 
> 5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.
> 
> 6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.
> 
> 7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!
> 
> 8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.
Click to expand...


By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria.  Didn't work then, won't work now.

Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.

Pass.


----------



## paulitician

Circe said:


> A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!
> 
> Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??
> 
> Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?



That's why they're taking their time. They're in the process of attempting to gain more support for it. Look for the Government/Media Complex to really start whipping up the War Propaganda hysteria. "OMG ASSAD IS HITLER!!!" And all that Bullshite. Right now, the People aren't going along. And that's very upsetting for Big Brother. He'll have to try different tactics. Stay tuned.


----------



## Camp

eflatminor said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) *There is no clear and compelling national interest. * Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective.  Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence.  Bottom line, it's not our war.
> 
> 2) *Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'*.  Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak.  Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons.  Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 3) *Victory has not been defined! * No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like.  Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded?  If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.
> 
> 4) *Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective.*  "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:
> 
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
> Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes, he said. Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."
> 
> 5) *Its hard to keep limited actions limited.* As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."  John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible.  Great, then what?
> 
> 6) *Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor.*  Why are we ignoring history?  We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.
> 
> 7) *The people do not want this war.*  Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.
> 
> 8) *If either side wins, it does not help the US.*  Our enemies are killing our enemies.  So what's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.
> 
> 2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!
> 
> 3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.
> 
> 4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!
> 
> 5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.
> 
> 6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.
> 
> 7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!
> 
> 8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria.  Didn't work then, won't work now.
> 
> Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.
> 
> Pass.
Click to expand...


"Our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons". Where do you buy your history books? Take them back and demand a refund. We ignored it when they used them. Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.


----------



## Circe

paulitician said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!
> 
> Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??
> 
> Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they're taking their time. They're in the process of attempting to gain more support for it. Look for the Government/Media Complex to really start whipping up the War Propaganda hysteria. "OMG ASSAD IS HITLER!!!" And all that Bullshite. Right now, the People aren't going along. And that's very upsetting for Big Brother. He'll have to try different tactics. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...



They were stupid to use poison gas, given that this argument has been so conclusively ridiculed by all sides in the years since George Bush's terrible failure. Everyone now knows Bush lied us into war. I wonder why they thought they could use it second time?? Poor IQs, I suppose. 

I don't see how they can effectively villainize Assad, with all the photos everywhere of our major pols loving on him in happier times. 

They'll have to mock up a fake attack on us. I don't see how Obama's going to get his war otherwise.


----------



## eflatminor

Camp said:


> Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.



Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.

Whatever dude, you go with that...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> You really don't know what you are talking about. You are shooting from the hip, but your pistol shoots blanks. Over 10 years since 9/11 and it is obvious you don't know what al Qaeda means, who they are or what they are about.



Right...


----------



## IlarMeilyr

eflatminor said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
> 
> Whatever dude, you go with that...
Click to expand...


Yep.

Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:



> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
> willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
> and its own people;


 -- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm


----------



## Camp

IlarMeilyr said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our war with Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq's use of chem warfare years before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
> 
> Whatever dude, you go with that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
> willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
> and its own people;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Click to expand...


His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.


----------



## TooTall

g5000 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.
> 
> A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.
Click to expand...


Chemical warfare manufacturing facilities will not be targeted for fear of dispersing poison gas into the air and killing thousands.  Military command and control hubs are legitimate targets, but will probably be empty or underground by the time a strike is authorized.  Cruise missiles are not bunker busters and would be ineffective.

With his rocket launchers safely hidden he can resume gassing his people at will.  We will probably be out of cruise missiles by then.  The expensive part is the cost of replacing several hundred tomahawk missiles.

Are you prepared for two or three days of bloody pictures of dead Syrian men, women and children with missing arms, legs and heads?  That is what will be broadcast to the world after a US missile strike.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> Are you certain that a NATO response isn't what Syria would be after?



At one time, the USSR had a couple of attack dogs in the Middle East - Iraq and Syria. We had our attack dog, Israel. 

Iraq is gone, and in real terms, Syria is a bit toothless. That said, Syria under Assad will do exactly what Putin tells them to do. So while Syria might well be crazy enough to attack NATO, Russia is not. They have NATO states in their heartland. Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic are breathing down the neck of Mother Russia. 




> If what they are looking for is a wide regional war to drag in Iran, a NATO response would be exactly what they intend.  Don't count on a NATO response either.   This would be obama's baby and they might elect to find a way out.



Turkey is a NATO nation, an attack on Turkey obligates NATO to act. There is no choice, the treaty dictates that all NATO nations move to defend any member state that is attacked.



> What isn't considered is that just because the US has no plan, others are making plans of their own.   Americans just aren't even considering that as a possibility.  obama truly believes he will fire a couple of hundred missiles into Syria and nothing will happen.  No one would dare to retaliate against him, he's black.  No one wants to be called a racist for retaliating against a black man.



Maybe Obama is playing this due to his inability to formulate a plan, to force NATO to act in his stead?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Kondor3 said:


> Russia ain't that stupid, to attack *US* bases, either...
> 
> The second they do, US popular support for Fearless Leader will skyrocket into the 90s...
> 
> And we will have a war that the Russians are neither ready for, nor looking to trigger...



Maybe, but at this time, the USA stands alone and is the aggressor against Syria. Hitting Jordan will not elicit a NATO response.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## IlarMeilyr

Camp said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight...we never heard "Saddam gassed the Kurds" as one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
> 
> Whatever dude, you go with that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
> willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
> and its own people;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.
Click to expand...


Your tidy selective reading of the WHEREAS clauses is simply wrong.

They are all part and parcel of the enumerated grounds for our action against Saddam's regime.

You may wish to pick and choose and you might prefer to try to engage in parceling out the meaning of what the Resolution itself says, but therein lies your problem.  The Resolution speaks for itself.

PART of the reason was a concern that a scumbag like Saddam might permit the like of al qaeda to gain access to such weapons.  PART of the reason was to buttress a variety of prior UN Resolutions.  PART of the reason was because that scumbag DID use weapons on his own people.  PART of the reason was because his behaviors and threats did threaten the region.  Etc.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but neither was NAZI Germany. Once again, your thinking about national security in 1812 terms, border security etc. Its 2013 and US national security is far more complex and for at least a century has started in variety of places overseas far from American shores because of economics, trade, and natural resource requirments.
> 
> The US is striking Syria to deter the further use of Chemical weapons by Assad, to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons worldwide, and to send a message to states like North Korea, Iran or anyone else contemplating the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that such use will NEVER be tolerated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.
Click to expand...


You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.

You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.


----------



## Camp

IlarMeilyr said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Congress itself CITED Saddam's USE of such weapons AGAINST his own (Kurd) people:
> 
> -- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your tidy selective reading of the WHEREAS clauses is simply wrong.
> 
> They are all part and parcel of the enumerated grounds for our action against Saddam's regime.
> 
> You may wish to pick and choose and you might prefer to try to engage in parceling out the meaning of what the Resolution itself says, but therein lies your problem.  The Resolution speaks for itself.
> 
> PART of the reason was a concern that a scumbag like Saddam might permit the like of al qaeda to gain access to such weapons.  PART of the reason was to buttress a variety of prior UN Resolutions.  PART of the reason was because that scumbag DID use weapons on his own people.  PART of the reason was because his behaviors and threats did threaten the region.  Etc.
Click to expand...


I' not seeing much difference between what you are saying and what I said. War or military action with Syria will be allegedly caused by a chemical attack as a stand alone reason. Not so with Iraq. It may have been one of the reasons tied into other reasons, but it was not a stand alone cause. Ofcourse this disregards all the other sub plots going on in Syria and I suppose the sub plots that went on with Irag.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Camp said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> His use of chemical weapons was used as evidence he had them and had a willingness to use them. That in itself was not enough to cause us to support invasion. Fear was instilled in the American population that he would transfer these weapons to the people who attacked us on 9/11, specificly al Qaeda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tidy selective reading of the WHEREAS clauses is simply wrong.
> 
> They are all part and parcel of the enumerated grounds for our action against Saddam's regime.
> 
> You may wish to pick and choose and you might prefer to try to engage in parceling out the meaning of what the Resolution itself says, but therein lies your problem.  The Resolution speaks for itself.
> 
> PART of the reason was a concern that a scumbag like Saddam might permit the like of al qaeda to gain access to such weapons.  PART of the reason was to buttress a variety of prior UN Resolutions.  PART of the reason was because that scumbag DID use weapons on his own people.  PART of the reason was because his behaviors and threats did threaten the region.  Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I' not seeing much difference between what you are saying and what I said. War or military action with Syria will be allegedly caused by a chemical attack as a stand alone reason. Not so with Iraq. It may have been one of the reasons tied into other reasons, but it was not a stand alone cause. Ofcourse this disregards all the other sub plots going on in Syria and I suppose the sub plots that went on with Irag.
Click to expand...


If Obumbler lobs in missiles, that's not the same as GOING to war.  It is merely engaging in ACTS of war.

And yes.  IF he does it, it would be for a "stand alone" reason.  

And also true, there was no such "stand alone" reason for the attack in Iraq by the U.S. against Saddam's regime.

When we acted in Iraq, Congress authorized it.

As of this minute, no such action against Syria's illicit regime is authorized by Congress.  

In Iraq, there WERE legitimate reasons.  

In Syria, the stand alone reason, standing alone, is not a sufficient reason.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!


----------



## RandallFlagg

R.C. Christian said:


> Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!



Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.

(1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.  

(2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability. 

The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.

Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.

You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.

Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line".  Jesus. What an incompetent slob.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has launched three separate strikes against Syria this year already. Assad did nothing in response. His military is busy dealing with the rebels in the country. They have their hands filled with the rebels. With rebel forces just a few miles from the city center of Damascus, Assad can't afford to be sending military assets out of the country to attack someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you don't believe Syria will shoot back? That if we attack them with your 300 cruise missiles, they will just sit their quietly and take it? No reply of any kind?
> 
> I don't know about that........
Click to expand...


Well, what would Syria shoot back with? Its reported that they only have on average about 50 combat aircraft serviceable on any given day with trained pilots to fly them. Why would they risk these aircraft against the United States or Israel when they could continue to use the against the rebels? If they use them against the United States or Israel, they will be shot down. The rebels are rarely able to shoot down aircraft. I don't think Syria wants to forgoe its advantage of airpower in the civil war. So using aircraft is out of the question. 

         Next, they could fire back with some form of ballistic missile. But then that is a ballistic missile that they won't have to use against the rebels. 

The four northern provinces are in rebel hands which makes artillery attacks or attacks on the ground from Syria to Turkey impossible. The border with Israel changes hands with the rebels daily sometimes. 

        Most of what Assad has left is in the armor, infantry and artillery, and those assets are not in a position to attack United States or Turkish targets. Most of it can't even hit Israeli targets. 

        Their Air Force is too small to risk in combat against the United States and Israel. The US Destroyers at sea are out of range of their coastal anti-ship missiles. 

        So again, your down to just the long range ballistic missiles and why would they want to waste those in response to a 300 cruise missile strike?

         Assad has very limited options in directly responding to any attack, and any response he makes with those limited assets deplete those assets and means they can't be used against the rebels.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has launched three separate strikes against Syria this year already. Assad did nothing in response. His military is busy dealing with the rebels in the country. They have their hands filled with the rebels. With rebel forces just a few miles from the city center of Damascus, Assad can't afford to be sending military assets out of the country to attack someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you don't believe Syria will shoot back? That if we attack them with your 300 cruise missiles, they will just sit their quietly and take it? No reply of any kind?
> 
> I don't know about that........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what would Syria shoot back with? Its reported that they only have on average about 50 combat aircraft serviceable on any given day with trained pilots to fly them. Why would they risk these aircraft against the United States or Israel when they could continue to use the against the rebels? If they use them against the United States or Israel, they will be shot down. The rebels are rarely able to shoot down aircraft. I don't think Syria wants to forgoe its advantage of airpower in the civil war. So using aircraft is out of the question.
> 
> Next, they could fire back with some form of ballistic missile. But then that is a ballistic missile that they won't have to use against the rebels.
> 
> The four northern provinces are in rebel hands which makes artillery attacks or attacks on the ground from Syria to Turkey impossible. The border with Israel changes hands with the rebels daily sometimes.
> 
> Most of what Assad has left is in the armor, infantry and artillery, and those assets are not in a position to attack United States or Turkish targets. Most of it can't even hit Israeli targets.
> 
> Their Air Force is too small to risk in combat against the United States and Israel. The US Destroyers at sea are out of range of their coastal anti-ship missiles.
> 
> So again, your down to just the long range ballistic missiles and why would they want to waste those in response to a 300 cruise missile strike?
> 
> Assad has very limited options in directly responding to any attack, and any response he makes with those limited assets deplete those assets and means they can't be used against the rebels.
Click to expand...


their "shooting back"  may take the form of a bomb in New York or Tel Aviv.   We have open borders so it would be easy for al qaeda to retaliate on our soil.


----------



## U2Edge

Circe said:


> A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!
> 
> Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??
> 
> Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?



*Breaking NEWS*

        U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!
> 
> Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??
> 
> Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breaking NEWS*
> 
> U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!
Click to expand...


Great, once again we declare ourselves the world's morality police and put our citizens at risk.   

Every congressman who votes for this lunacy should be tarred and feathered.


----------



## U2Edge

eflatminor said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why specifically?  Over 100,000 have died in Syria with conventional weapons but only a fraction have died by chemical weapons.  Conventional weapons are clearly far deadlier than chemical weapons and there is no evidence that their use in Syria increases the likelihood they'll be used in the US.  So again, why specifically is the use of chemical weapons a danger to the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The United States have vital national security interest all over the world. You would have to go back to the 19th century to find a time when US vital national security interest was just about what was inside the borders of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  It's simply an unsupported statement.  "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason.  Again, I asked for specificity.  You gave us a bullshit talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> And big bombs aren't?  Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages".  Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military.  Please.
> 
> Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. No response to Assad's use of the weapons will make it more likely they will be used again in Syria and elsewhere, increasing the likely hood of proliferation, and the the likely hood that the men and women of the United States armed forces will have these terrible weapons used against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?  Link?  Anything?
> 
> Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments.  Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US.  Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.
> 
> So far, that's one big fat fail...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Chemical Weapons use in Syria has proved more deadly than conventional weapons which is not a surprise. The facts: 1,469 Syrians were killed in the early hours of August 21, 2013. That is by far the highest death toll for any day in the Syrian conflict. It is higher than any single day in the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On average over the past year, 6,000 people are killed in Syria per month. In just a few hours on August 21, 2013, 1,469 people were murdered. If the weapons fired had been conventional explosives, the death toll would have *been LESS THAN 10% of what was seen with chemical weapons!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons?  How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?
> 
> Hint:  It isn't.
> 
> Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Wow dude, that's just sad.  You want to get us into another war, we get it.  But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so.  What you put forth is just pathetic.
Click to expand...


1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military. 

2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition. 

3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program. 

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL


----------



## U2Edge

eflatminor said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) *There is no clear and compelling national interest. * Humanitarian military interventions are ineffective.  Lobbing missiles does not reduce violence.  Bottom line, it's not our war.
> 
> 2) *Chemical weapons should not be a 'red line'*.  Even if Assad used these weapons and not his enemies (far from clear), the case for treating chemical weapons as somehow different than far more deadly conventional weapons is weak.  Over 100,000 have been killed in this war with conventional weapons - a tiny fraction by chemical weapons.  Dead is dead and as Rwanda proved, you don't need anything more than machetes to kill hundreds of thousands.
> 
> 3) *Victory has not been defined! * No one has articulated what victory in Syria looks like.  Why should we fight, who are we helping, and how do we know if we've succeeded?  If we can't answer these questions, we shouldn't get involved.
> 
> 4) *Missiles and a 'no fly zone' will not be effective.*  "Limited" action by the US will do no good, according to the experts:
> 
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, the possible results of enforcing a no-fly zone could "include the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces. It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum..."
> Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explained it to the L.A. Times: Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes, he said. Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no."
> 
> 5) *Its hard to keep limited actions limited.* As Chairman Dempsey further cautioned, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."  John Kerry implied the same yesterday when he said boots on the ground were possible.  Great, then what?
> 
> 6) *Deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor.*  Why are we ignoring history?  We wind up entangling the US in civil wars with outcomes clearly not worth the price.
> 
> 7) *The people do not want this war.*  Every poll clearly indicates the people are not interested in military intervention, chemical weapons or not.
> 
> 8) *If either side wins, it does not help the US.*  Our enemies are killing our enemies.  So what's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.
> 
> 2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!
> 
> 3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.
> 
> 4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!
> 
> 5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.
> 
> 6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.
> 
> 7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!
> 
> 8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria.  Didn't work then, won't work now.
> 
> Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.
> 
> Pass.
Click to expand...


         That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope. 

        Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The United States have vital national security interest all over the world. You would have to go back to the 19th century to find a time when US vital national security interest was just about what was inside the borders of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  It's simply an unsupported statement.  "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason.  Again, I asked for specificity.  You gave us a bullshit talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> And big bombs aren't?  Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages".  Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military.  Please.
> 
> Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?  Link?  Anything?
> 
> Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments.  Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US.  Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.
> 
> So far, that's one big fat fail...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Chemical Weapons use in Syria has proved more deadly than conventional weapons which is not a surprise. The facts: 1,469 Syrians were killed in the early hours of August 21, 2013. That is by far the highest death toll for any day in the Syrian conflict. It is higher than any single day in the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On average over the past year, 6,000 people are killed in Syria per month. In just a few hours on August 21, 2013, 1,469 people were murdered. If the weapons fired had been conventional explosives, the death toll would have *been LESS THAN 10% of what was seen with chemical weapons!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons?  How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?
> 
> Hint:  It isn't.
> 
> Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Wow dude, that's just sad.  You want to get us into another war, we get it.  But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so.  What you put forth is just pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.
> 
> 2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.
> 
> 3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.
> 
> 4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL
Click to expand...




If all that is true,  if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack?   Where are our allies?  Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland,  Australia, Vanuatu?   

Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?

BTW,  why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs?   He is just as dead either way.    I would really appreciate an answer


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.
> 
> A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chemical warfare manufacturing facilities will not be targeted for fear of dispersing poison gas into the air and killing thousands.  Military command and control hubs are legitimate targets, but will probably be empty or underground by the time a strike is authorized.  Cruise missiles are not bunker busters and would be ineffective.
> 
> With his rocket launchers safely hidden he can resume gassing his people at will.  We will probably be out of cruise missiles by then.  The expensive part is the cost of replacing several hundred tomahawk missiles.
> 
> Are you prepared for two or three days of bloody pictures of dead Syrian men, women and children with missing arms, legs and heads?  That is what will be broadcast to the world after a US missile strike.
Click to expand...


         I'd prefer that too seeing Assad gas 10,000 people in his next attack.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.
> 
> 2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!
> 
> 3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.
> 
> 4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!
> 
> 5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.
> 
> 6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.
> 
> 7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!
> 
> 8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria.  Didn't work then, won't work now.
> 
> Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.
> 
> Pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.
> 
> Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.
Click to expand...


flawed logic.   Its none of our damn business.   Let them kill each other until someone wins.   Why are we the world's referee?

No one doubts the capability of the US military,  we don't have  to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.
> 
> A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemical warfare manufacturing facilities will not be targeted for fear of dispersing poison gas into the air and killing thousands.  Military command and control hubs are legitimate targets, but will probably be empty or underground by the time a strike is authorized.  Cruise missiles are not bunker busters and would be ineffective.
> 
> With his rocket launchers safely hidden he can resume gassing his people at will.  We will probably be out of cruise missiles by then.  The expensive part is the cost of replacing several hundred tomahawk missiles.
> 
> Are you prepared for two or three days of bloody pictures of dead Syrian men, women and children with missing arms, legs and heads?  That is what will be broadcast to the world after a US missile strike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd prefer that too seeing Assad gas 10,000 people in his next attack.
Click to expand...


he has already killed over 100,000 with bombs and bullets-----but those people don't count?  only the ones killed by gas count?


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.
> 
> 2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!
> 
> 3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.
> 
> 4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!
> 
> 5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.
> 
> 6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.
> 
> 7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!
> 
> 8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria.  Didn't work then, won't work now.
> 
> Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.
> 
> Pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.
> 
> Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.
Click to expand...



And again, were I you, I would leave this forum immediately and head to my nearest Army recruiter to get my Army career started - to protect the people of the United States.

Oh, that's right! I'VE already served and fought in a war. 

Better get moving! Times a-wasting!


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.
> 
> You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.
Click to expand...


          Assad's use of chemical weapons threatens US National Security. His use of conventional weapons in this particular case, does not!

          I understand the difference between conventional weapons and WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's what this missile strike is about. Its not about the Syrian civil War, its about the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

         By the way, I'm a registered Republican who has yet to ever vote for a Democrat.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!
> 
> Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??
> 
> Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breaking NEWS*
> 
> U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, once again we declare ourselves the world's morality police and put our citizens at risk.
> 
> Every congressman who votes for this lunacy should be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...


Im no Constitutional scholar, but I KNOW this: The president can NOT authorize a declaration of war and the Congress can NOT wage war. Once the "limited action authorization" is given, it is up to Barry HOW it is implemented. it is solely up to HIM how the action is taken.

the left might trust this fool, but I do NOT.


----------



## Contumacious

U2Edge said:


> [
> 
> 4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL



Lethal Weapon
*
FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial*


After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, *began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS  gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.*

Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop  them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?

.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.
> 
> (1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.
> 
> (2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.
> 
> The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.
> 
> Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.
> 
> You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.
> 
> Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line".  Jesus. What an incompetent slob.
Click to expand...


1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.

2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad. 

3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.
> 
> You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assad's use of chemical weapons threatens US National Security. His use of conventional weapons in this particular case, does not!
> 
> I understand the difference between conventional weapons and WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's what this missile strike is about. Its not about the Syrian civil War, its about the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> By the way, I'm a registered Republican who has yet to ever vote for a Democrat.
Click to expand...


Uh-huh. So as long as men, women and children are being killed, to the tune of 145,000 - you're fine with that. But 1,500 are killed by Chems, and suddenly YOU are concerned. Gotcha.

I ain't buying your BS for one second.


----------



## Contumacious

U2Edge said:


> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> .



Shalom

How are things in TelAviv?

How the fuck do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?

.


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  It's simply an unsupported statement.  "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason.  Again, I asked for specificity.  You gave us a bullshit talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> And big bombs aren't?  Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US.  And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages".  Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military.  Please.
> 
> Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?  Link?  Anything?
> 
> Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments.  Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US.  Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.
> 
> So far, that's one big fat fail...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons?  How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?
> 
> Hint:  It isn't.
> 
> Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.
> 
> Fail again.
> 
> Wow dude, that's just sad.  You want to get us into another war, we get it.  But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so.  What you put forth is just pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.
> 
> 2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.
> 
> 3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.
> 
> 4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all that is true,  if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack?   Where are our allies?  Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland,  Australia, Vanuatu?
> 
> Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?
> 
> BTW,  why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs?   He is just as dead either way.    I would really appreciate an answer
Click to expand...


China and Russia are not U.S. allies.

         Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some. 

          Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes. 

           The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria.  Didn't work then, won't work now.
> 
> Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.
> 
> Pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.
> 
> Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flawed logic.   Its none of our damn business.   Let them kill each other until someone wins.   Why are we the world's referee?
> 
> No one doubts the capability of the US military,  we don't have  to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.
Click to expand...


       Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.
> 
> You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assad's use of chemical weapons threatens US National Security. His use of conventional weapons in this particular case, does not!
> 
> I understand the difference between conventional weapons and WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's what this missile strike is about. Its not about the Syrian civil War, its about the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> By the way, I'm a registered Republican who has yet to ever vote for a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So as long as men, women and children are being killed, to the tune of 145,000 - you're fine with that. But 1,500 are killed by Chems, and suddenly YOU are concerned. Gotcha.
> 
> I ain't buying your BS for one second.
Click to expand...


The point is that the use of chemical weapons opens up the proliferation of such weapons around the world. If the US does not respond here, Iran, North Korea and other countries around the world will not think the US is serious about stopping the proliferation of such weapons, let alone nuclear weapons.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.
> 
> Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flawed logic.   Its none of our damn business.   Let them kill each other until someone wins.   Why are we the world's referee?
> 
> No one doubts the capability of the US military,  we don't have  to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.
Click to expand...


91% of americans do not want us involved in Syria.   Isn't congress supposed to do the will of the people?   or are they so pious and powerful that they can ignore the people who sent them to DC for lifetime jobs?


----------



## Mustang

Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.


----------



## U2Edge

Contumacious said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shalom
> 
> How are things in TelAviv?
> 
> How the fuck do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Because of the facilities that are needed to produce them and then store them can be identified by various intelligence methods. That does not mean they know where everything is though.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.
> 
> 2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.
> 
> 3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.
> 
> 4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all that is true,  if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack?   Where are our allies?  Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland,  Australia, Vanuatu?
> 
> Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?
> 
> BTW,  why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs?   He is just as dead either way.    I would really appreciate an answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China and Russia are not U.S. allies.
> 
> Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.
> 
> Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.
> 
> The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.
Click to expand...


I did not say that China and Russia were our allies.   I was responding to your claim that the entire world wants the use of chemical weapons punished.   

blowing up some runways and buildings will not deter Assad.  He is fighting for his life.   Unless we target him personally like Reagan did to Kadaffi, we will accomplish nothing but to piss off the rest of the world and put Israel in grave danger.


----------



## Kondor3

Mustang said:


> Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.


Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all *Acts of War*...


----------



## Kondor3

*Senate committee votes to authorize military strike in Syria*

.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




_Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn., center, hugs Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) while Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) looks on after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday giving President Obama authority to use force in Syria. (Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA / September 4, 2013)_

LA Times - By Paul Richter - September 4, 2013, 1:17 p.m.

WASHINGTON &#8211;- A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted narrowly Wednesday to authorize a punitive U.S. strike against Syria, opening the way for a vote in the full Senate next week.

The vote was 10 to 7, with Democrats and Republicans on each side. Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) supported the measure, as did ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has repeatedly urged President Obama to do more to aid the Syrian opposition.

Opponents included conservative Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and liberals Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who voted for the resolution, said it would send a clear message to Assad. "This won't be a limited, but a powerful response," he said.

The resolution, which was shaped by Menendez and Corker, called for a more limited use of force than Obama had proposed Saturday, when he announced that he would seek congressional blessing to strike Syria. But it also incorporated language from McCain calling for the United States to seek to shift the balance on the battlefield against Syrian President Bashar Assad&#8217;s government.

...

Senate committee votes to authorize military strike in Syria - latimes.com


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> flawed logic.   Its none of our damn business.   Let them kill each other until someone wins.   Why are we the world's referee?
> 
> No one doubts the capability of the US military,  we don't have  to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 91% of americans do not want us involved in Syria.   Isn't congress supposed to do the will of the people?   or are they so pious and powerful that they can ignore the people who sent them to DC for lifetime jobs?
Click to expand...


A Gallup poll at in May 2013 showed that 35% of Republicans would like to see direct US involvement in the Civil War there. Gallup has not put up a poll about Syria since the missile strike, but I think even more Republicans would support a missile strike. 

       Obama automatically gets over 50% of support from his party. With 35% of Republicans in the last gallup poll supporting intervention, I would say Obama has all the support he needs.

        But really, the only thing that could stop Obama would be 2/3 veto proof majority in both houses of congress cutting off the funding for military operations. 

         There is no change of that happening.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shalom
> 
> How are things in TelAviv?
> 
> How the fuck do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of the facilities that are needed to produce them and then store them can be identified by various intelligence methods. That does not mean they know where everything is though.
Click to expand...


Buddy, as someone who worked in the Intelligence field for 22 years, that is the most opened ended statement I have ever heard. Talk about "double-speak"!

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you are a worthless politician?


----------



## Redfish

Mustang said:


> Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.



If any country shot 200 missiles into US territory would we consider it an act of war?   Would we believe that that country had declared war on us?   would we retaliate?

are we the neighborhood bully that beats up others because he can?   or are we the beat cop who uses his nightstick on drunks that are making too much noise?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Contumacious said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lethal Weapon
> *
> FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial*
> 
> 
> After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, *began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS  gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.*
> 
> Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop  them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 91% of americans do not want us involved in Syria.   Isn't congress supposed to do the will of the people?   or are they so pious and powerful that they can ignore the people who sent them to DC for lifetime jobs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll at in May 2013 showed that 35% of Republicans would like to see direct US involvement in the Civil War there. Gallup has not put up a poll about Syria since the missile strike, but I think even more Republicans would support a missile strike.
> 
> Obama automatically gets over 50% of support from his party. With 35% of Republicans in the last gallup poll supporting intervention, I would say Obama has all the support he needs.
> 
> But really, the only thing that could stop Obama would be 2/3 veto proof majority in both houses of congress cutting off the funding for military operations.
> 
> There is no change of that happening.
Click to expand...


wise up,  he is going to do it anyway,  getting congress involved was just to give him someone to blame if it escalates or causes more deaths.   

Obama has effectively made congress his scapegoat, and the silly fuckers don't even know it.


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all that is true,  if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack?   Where are our allies?  Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland,  Australia, Vanuatu?
> 
> Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?
> 
> BTW,  why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs?   He is just as dead either way.    I would really appreciate an answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China and Russia are not U.S. allies.
> 
> Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.
> 
> Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.
> 
> The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that China and Russia were our allies.   I was responding to your claim that the entire world wants the use of chemical weapons punished.
> 
> blowing up some runways and buildings will not deter Assad.  He is fighting for his life.   Unless we target him personally like Reagan did to Kadaffi, we will accomplish nothing but to piss off the rest of the world and put Israel in grave danger.
Click to expand...


Assads position is not that dire at this time, but it could quickly become that way if he decides to challenge the United States. Assad was worried about blow back from the United States which is why he tried chemical attacks on a very tiny scale to see what the response would be. He has miscalculated with the August 21st attack and once the US response he will go back to just fighting with conventional weapons.


----------



## Mustang

Kondor3 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...
> 
> It's all the same, from a legal perspective...
> 
> Those are all *Acts of War*...
Click to expand...


You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.


----------



## Redfish

Mustang said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...
> 
> It's all the same, from a legal perspective...
> 
> Those are all *Acts of War*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
Click to expand...


was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor an act of war?    How does that differ from us lobbing 200 cruise missiles on Syria?


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> China and Russia are not U.S. allies.
> 
> Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.
> 
> Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.
> 
> The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that China and Russia were our allies.   I was responding to your claim that the entire world wants the use of chemical weapons punished.
> 
> blowing up some runways and buildings will not deter Assad.  He is fighting for his life.   Unless we target him personally like Reagan did to Kadaffi, we will accomplish nothing but to piss off the rest of the world and put Israel in grave danger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assads position is not that dire at this time, but it could quickly become that way if he decides to challenge the United States. Assad was worried about blow back from the United States which is why he tried chemical attacks on a very tiny scale to see what the response would be. He has miscalculated with the August 21st attack and once the US response he will go back to just fighting with conventional weapons.[
> 
> I disagree, but thats why we have debates.
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

Mustang said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...
> 
> It's all the same, from a legal perspective...
> 
> Those are all *Acts of War*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
Click to expand...


We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.    

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Redfish said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's advocating war?  My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If any country shot 200 missiles into US territory would we consider it an act of war?   Would we believe that that country had declared war on us?   would we retaliate?
> 
> are we the neighborhood bully that beats up others because he can?   or are we the beat cop who uses his nightstick on drunks that are making too much noise?
Click to expand...


The United States lives by the ideology that we are somehow the "arbiters" of the world. We know, for instance, that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons (and nerve agents) on both his people and the Iranians during the Iraq/Iranian war. There was/is no dispute to that.

Those acts didn't propel us into war. Nothing more than a "strong condemnation" from the US and the world.

China uses political prisoners for target practice. Known fact. The US response? Silence.

MILLIONS have been killed in Africa by waring factions over the last 30-40 years. The US response? Nothing.

Syria used Chemical weapons on it's own people WELL OVER A YEAR AGO. The response, after putting forth that famous "red line" that Obama now says "I didn't set" - nothing. Absolutely nothing. Now, a year later, after the SECOND act, Obama looks like a complete and utter FOOL and (in his own mind) MUST act - or risk his miserable legacy.

Now, we are attempting to overthrow Assad to install a radical, Islamic extremists regime  that wants nothing more than the "death of the West" and we are working towards putting them in power - which will be the ultimate outcome. One more country who hates America and actively seeks to destroy us. Put into power by us!

Finally, the country (notice I didn't say POLITICIANS - they are lemmings) is united AGAINST this action because quite frankly, we want someone else to shoulder SOME of the responsibility for a change - and it's the worthless LEFT that is defending Barry.

Now tell me that the world isn't upside down......


----------



## Mustang

candycorn said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...
> 
> It's all the same, from a legal perspective...
> 
> Those are all *Acts of War*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.
> 
> That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.
> 
> But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing.  Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic?  Probably not.

At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack.  Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey.  Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?


----------



## Redfish

candycorn said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...
> 
> It's all the same, from a legal perspective...
> 
> Those are all *Acts of War*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.
> 
> That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.
> 
> But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.
Click to expand...


your conclusion is correct,  but you are wrong that the right has supported every stupid war that we have engaged in.   Many on the right opposed Iraq and afghanistan, as well as korea and viet nam.


----------



## Redfish

Mustang said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.
> 
> That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.
> 
> But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing.  Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic?  Probably not.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack.  Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey.  Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?
Click to expand...


I think we agree,  but what amazes me is the support for this lunatic attack from the left.  are they so up obama's butt that they can't think clearly?


----------



## Contumacious

U2Edge said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shalom
> 
> How are things in TelAviv?
> 
> How the fuck do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of the facilities that are needed to produce them and then store them can be identified by various intelligence methods. That does not mean they know where everything is though.
Click to expand...


Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?

LINK

.


----------



## Katzndogz

Is there a plan to secure the chemical weapons?  

No.

Assad will remain in control or they will fall into the hands of the obama allies, al quaeda.

If it just wasn't all about obama's vanity.  It would be over.  obama has so poisoned our relationship with every other country that no one is willing to cooperate with us.


----------



## Mustang

Redfish said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.
> 
> That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.
> 
> But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing.  Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic?  Probably not.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack.  Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey.  Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we agree,  but what amazes me is the support for this lunatic attack from the left.  are they so up obama's butt that they can't think clearly?
Click to expand...


No doubt our arms industry supports the attack since cruise missiles cost somewhere in the range of a million dollars apiece.  The whole smart bomb business depends on weapons being used to get repeat orders.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?

I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "bitch".  Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....

I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!


----------



## Mac1958

RandallFlagg said:


> Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?
> 
> I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "bitch".  Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....
> 
> I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!




Arab League: Impotent
United Nations: Impotent
NATO: Impotent

Let America do it.  The Arabs already fucking hate them anyway, what is there to lose?

.


----------



## Contumacious

RandallFlagg said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lethal Weapon
> *
> FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial*
> 
> 
> After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, *began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS  gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.*
> 
> Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop  them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.
Click to expand...


So the US has been using gas against their own people a foreign countries, using white phosphorus chemical which it has given to Israel.

So they can NOT claim the moral high ground.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

U2Edge said:


> The point is that the use of chemical weapons opens up the proliferation of such weapons around the world. If the US does not respond here, Iran, North Korea and other countries around the world will not think the US is serious about stopping the proliferation of such weapons, let alone nuclear weapons.



That would be the North Korea and Iran working on active nuclear weapons programs?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mustang said:


> Who's advocating war?



Barack Obama - fucktard in chief - with his little dog McCain wagging behind him.



> My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.



Oh, so we'll just kill some women and children with missiles, and call it a day? Compassionate Communism in action again...


----------



## RandallFlagg

Contumacious said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lethal Weapon
> *
> FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial*
> 
> 
> After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, *began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS  gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.*
> 
> Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop  them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the US has been using gas against their own people a foreign countries, using white phosphorus chemical which it has given to Israel.
> 
> So they can NOT claim the moral high ground.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



As I recall, they used CS (pumped it into the house) in an effort to get the men, women and children to exit. They used Bradley's (from Fort Hood) to gain entrance. In essence, using weapons of war on our own people. The people (94 men, women and children) refused to exit the building for fear they would be shot. 2 unarmed men who did attempt to exit were shot and killed. The CS canisters started a fire which killed the civilians. The house burned to the ground in a matter of minutes while they stod by and watched it burn - not allowing fire trucks in to fight the fire until it was over. If memory serves, two men actually escaped the fire and were held for trial but were found not guilty and freed.

CS, while a chemical agent, is not considered "lethal" and is used primarily for military training and crowd control.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.
> 
> (1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.
> 
> (2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.
> 
> The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.
> 
> Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.
> 
> You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.
> 
> Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line".  Jesus. What an incompetent slob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.
> 
> 3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.
Click to expand...


Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.

Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.


----------



## Mustang

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's advocating war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama - fucktard in chief - with his little dog McCain wagging behind him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so we'll just kill some women and children with missiles, and call it a day? Compassionate Communism in action again...
Click to expand...


Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mustang said:


> Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.



It looks like it's you Communist hypocrites calling for war, not the conservatives.

Apparently war is bad, if the President has an "R" behind his name - but if he is Obama - then war is the greatest good.

As I've always said, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy....


----------



## candycorn

Mustang said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.
> 
> That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.
> 
> But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing.  Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic?  Probably not.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack.  Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey.  Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?
Click to expand...


All great points in my view.  It's a tragedy going on over there but we don't have a good outcome for going in....therefore we shouldn't.


----------



## candycorn

Redfish said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law?  That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now.  However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.
> 
> That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria.  Simply not worth it.  The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.
> 
> But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your conclusion is correct,  but you are wrong that the right has supported every stupid war that we have engaged in.   Many on the right opposed Iraq and afghanistan, as well as korea and viet nam.
Click to expand...


Many maybe.  Most?  No.


----------



## Mustang

Contumacious said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lethal Weapon
> *
> FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial*
> 
> 
> After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, *began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS  gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.*
> 
> Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop  them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the US has been using gas against their own people a foreign countries, using white phosphorus chemical which it has given to Israel.
> 
> So they can NOT claim the moral high ground.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Let's not forget napalm, agent orange, and depleted uranium shells.


----------



## Mustang

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like it's you Communist hypocrites calling for war, not the conservatives.
> 
> Apparently war is bad, if the President has an "R" behind his name - but if he is Obama - then war is the greatest good.
> 
> As I've always said, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy....
Click to expand...


Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.  At least the Obama team has evidence.  It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mustang said:


> Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.



Now Assad has used those same weapons...

OOOPS



> At least the Obama team has evidence.



Obama has a "D" behind his name, that's the only difference, and the only thing you give a shit about.



> It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.



ROFL

Assad got Saddams stock piles - and has now unleashed them. When Obama fucks this all up, as he will - you'll blame Bush.


----------



## Wyld Kard

paulitician said:


> Gee, how convenient. Assad has become the Chemical Weapons Boogeyman they desperately wanted him to be. Way too convenient if you ask me. I'm not buying our Government's story on this.



It is way too convient.  Obama's handlers need a reason to reason to "justify" actions that would otherwise be widely  opposed.

Without the lie about "chemical weapons" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - a military strike on Syria.

Just like when GWB was prez, without the lie about "weapons of mass destruction" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - an invasion of Iraq.

Basically it's the same routine, different location.


----------



## U2Edge

RandallFlagg said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.
> 
> (1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.
> 
> (2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.
> 
> The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.
> 
> Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.
> 
> You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.
> 
> Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line".  Jesus. What an incompetent slob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.
> 
> 3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.
> 
> Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.
Click to expand...


There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc. 

           There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.


----------



## Hoffstra

let's see if Congress comes even close to reflecting the views of the American people on this issue.

I doubt it.

they are beholden to their donors, not their voters.

....until a few months before the election.


----------



## Geaux4it

This is the way liberals deliver a strong message....The strike is akin to 'If a tree falls in the forest........"

-Geaux


----------



## Mustang

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now Assad has used those same weapons...
> 
> OOOPS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least the Obama team has evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama has a "D" behind his name, that's the only difference, and the only thing you give a shit about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Assad got Saddams stock piles - and has now unleashed them. When Obama fucks this all up, as he will - you'll blame Bush.
Click to expand...


Chemical weapons have a short shelf life, Sherlock.

Next time, I'll explain to you how you can tell when water is boiling.


----------



## georgephillip

Possibly this information was posted earlier in the day, if so, I'm sorry for the repeat, but it is worth pondering why so many elites in both major parties are pushing for escalation in Syria:

"The resolution specifically would permit Obama to order a limited military mission against Syria, as long as it doesn't exceed 90 days and involves no American troops on the ground for combat operations. The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, crafted the resolution." 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-opposes-syria-strike-resolution/


----------



## percysunshine

I didnt set a red line. The world set a red line."

Bullshit;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxxwfaIAl_Q&feature=player_embedded]Obama Warns Syria's Assad Chemical Weapons A 'RED Line' - YouTube[/ame]



And then he goes on to say;

My credibility is not on the line  the international communitys credibility is on the line, 



How can anyone defend this turd?


----------



## Geaux4it

I'm still waiting on the proof Assad launched these

-Geaux


----------



## RandallFlagg

percysunshine said:


> I didnt set a red line. The world set a red line."
> 
> Bullshit;
> 
> Obama Warns Syria's Assad Chemical Weapons A 'RED Line' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> And then he goes on to say;
> 
> My credibility is not on the line  the international communitys credibility is on the line,
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone defend this turd?



Seriously? These communists lefties would follow that fool into a raging fire. Like I said, he is TERRIFIED that his so-called "legacy" will be tarnished. THAT is what this is all about. Nothing more and damned sure nothing less.

If he were actually "outraged" at the use of chemical weapons, this would have been all the rage a year ago.  Suddenly, he is "concerned" - because he looks foolish.


----------



## RandallFlagg

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.
> 
> 3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.
> 
> Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
Click to expand...


Uh-huh. Who do you work for? McCain?


----------



## Kondor3

Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.

Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.

And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.

I may have been mistaken.


----------



## Gracie

Well...I don't really give a rats ass if they used chemical weapons. China had a guy use serin gas in the subways but you didn't see up run over there with boots on the ground. IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. When terrorists use it HERE, THEN it's our business.

But I waste my breath. Obama is bound and determined to start WWIII no matter what ANYONE says.


----------



## georgephillip

percysunshine said:


> I didnt set a red line. The world set a red line."
> 
> Bullshit;
> 
> Obama Warns Syria's Assad Chemical Weapons A 'RED Line' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> And then he goes on to say;
> 
> My credibility is not on the line  the international communitys credibility is on the line,
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone defend this turd?


Obama has been Wall Street's Boy* from Day One.
He's only occupying the White House because the richest 1% had no idea how bad the Great Recession would be in the Fall of 2008 so they chose a "black knight" to ensure their survival. The petrodollar is key to their continued economic success at the expense of 90% of Americans (and Syrians) I'm beginning to think Obama needs the same impeachment scare that Clinton got if we don't want to see war with Iran and the privatization of Social Security before 2016.

*Mark Twain believed the difference between the almost-right word and the right word was the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. Boy is the bug. The lightning starts with the same letter and rhymes with rich.


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.
> 
> Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.
> 
> I may have been mistaken.


FWIW, I don't think you were.
McCain and Mitt would have performed similarly to Obama in many ways, but at least progressives and liberals would have been united against their signature drone strikes and bankster bailouts. Possibly, Democrats and Republicans have outlived their usefulness to the political process in the US?


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.
> 
> 3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.
> 
> Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
Click to expand...


You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas.  Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Mustang said:


> Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.  *At least the Obama team has evidence.  It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point*.



Then why in the f*ck are we picking a side? I don't give a f*ck about what Bush did this concerns only one *sshole currently in charge and that person is little obie mompants.

So we're going to start a war because little obie mompants riding a bike with a helmet and pretty much looking like a pussie is all butt hurt his mouth wrote some alligator checks his little pussie *ss can't cash. And it's going to fall on our military people to cover for this *sshole?

You don't know what side is responsible all you know is your president looks like a f*cking twat and you will do anything to make that go away. Even if you help our enemies in the process.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Kondor3 said:


> Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.
> 
> Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.
> 
> I may have been mistaken.



I remember voting for Richard Nixon (the first time) because I was in the Army and he supported the military. When he ran the second time, I literally BEGGED my folks NOT to vote for the man and (shamefully) I was overseas and didn't vote.

I distinctly remember how crappy I felt when Watergate was exposed. No one was killed, no one was hurt, some guys just broke into an office at the DNC. It brought the crook down and I was glad it did.

Believe me, I know how you feel...............


----------



## dukect45

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.
> 
> Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.
> 
> I may have been mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember voting for Richard Nixon (the first time) because I was in the Army and he supported the military. When he ran the second time, I literally BEGGED my folks NOT to vote for the man and (shamefully) I was overseas and didn't vote.
> 
> I distinctly remember how crappy I felt when Watergate was exposed. No one was killed, no one was hurt, some guys just broke into an office at the DNC. It brought the crook down and I was glad it did.
> 
> Believe me, I know how you feel...............
Click to expand...


And what is our solution to this is it keep voting D's or R's,  or this country finally sees the light and realizes how both parties Fucked this place up and start voting people in with one goal in mind to help the american people. But I really doubt it though


----------



## RandallFlagg

dukect45 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.
> 
> Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.
> 
> I may have been mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember voting for Richard Nixon (the first time) because I was in the Army and he supported the military. When he ran the second time, I literally BEGGED my folks NOT to vote for the man and (shamefully) I was overseas and didn't vote.
> 
> I distinctly remember how crappy I felt when Watergate was exposed. No one was killed, no one was hurt, some guys just broke into an office at the DNC. It brought the crook down and I was glad it did.
> 
> Believe me, I know how you feel...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is our solution to this is it keep voting D's or R's,  or this country finally sees the light and realizes how both parties Fucked this place up and start voting people in with one goal in mind to help the american people. But I really doubt it though
Click to expand...


The solution? I used to believe that a viable third party was an option. It is not. The "powers that be" on both the (D) and the (R) side will never allow it.

Look, it's not really about what is "best" for America. These clowns that we send to Washington - who take up residence and never leave - couldn't care less about what is "best" for the American people. They merely seek power for themselves. Hell, truth be told, they don't give a damn about "party". They care about one thing and one thing only - themselves.

These same "politicians" refuse to allow term limits. They refuse to allow a third party. They mask their "work" (and I use that term very loosely) in such legalese detail that the majority of Americans don't have the remotest idea what the hell they even do.

You have people "serving" in DC that haven't worked in their districts for 30-40 years. They maintain a home that they never go to. They have offices in their home districts that they RARELY visit. Politics is nothing more than a giant shell-game whose participants KNOW that they are screwing the populace and laugh about it at their K Street cocktail parties.

Some, Harry Reid for example, went to Washington DC with a net worth of $85,000. Today, he is worth somewhere in the neighborhood (he won't say exactly) of 18 million dollars. Same with Pelosi. Same with McCain. Hell I could go on for an hour.

This was NEVER how our founding Fathers envisioned it. Represenatives were to travel back and forth to DC - never taking up residence there. Now, these same "servants" live lavish lifestyles, own 3 - 4 homes, take vacations that most of us would die for, and continue on their merry way - laughing all the way to the bank.

WE are not employing them as "servants of the people" they are the "Masters and WE are the Servants" and they will NEVER dilute the "pool" by adding another party. Won't happen.

The solution? There is none. WE THE PEOPLE have done this to ourselves.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

This is the most important fact.

12 Very Good Reasons Why America Should Stay Out of Syria | Alternet



> *Three, an attack on Syria would also be a violation of international law since Syria has not attacked the US. Like Bush, Obama has decided to bypass the UNSC. In fact, on a number of occasions in the last three decades, the US has, without going through the UNSC, invaded other sovereign states. ...*
> 
> Six, indeed the US is guilty of fabricating various false flag operations since it emerged as a colonial power at the end of the nineteenth century. From the battleship Maine incident in Havana in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin episode in 1964 to the Kuwait incubator event in 1990 to the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) myth in Iraq in 2003, US intelligence and security outfits have become adept at creating situations and circumstances which are then manipulated to undermine the enemy. ...
> 
> Eleven, needless to say, sectarian clashes in WANA benefit Israel which views turmoil and upheaval in its neighbourhood as a boon to its goal of remaining the dominant force in the region. For the Israeli elite, the ability of their nation to perpetuate its dominance is sine qua non for the security of the state which is their primary obsession. It is significant that Israel and Zionism have been able to ensure that US and Western policy as a whole in WANA is dovetailed to meet the core interests of the Israeli state. Taking military action against Syria with the objective of overthrowing Bashar is what Israel wants because Bashar is an important link in the axis of resistance to Israeli dominance which includes Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has conducted three air strikes within Syria in the last six months and its commandos have been training segments of the armed opposition. *It is believed that the so-called independent intelligence on the 21 August chemical weapons incident that is being hawked around by the US and Britain is actually from Israel.* In this regard, it is worth reiterating that Israel is the hidden hand in much of the politics of other states in WANA such as Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan.


----------



## Redfish

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing.  Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic?  Probably not.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack.  Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey.  Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we agree,  but what amazes me is the support for this lunatic attack from the left.  are they so up obama's butt that they can't think clearly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt our arms industry supports the attack since cruise missiles cost somewhere in the range of a million dollars apiece.  The whole smart bomb business depends on weapons being used to get repeat orders.
Click to expand...


so are you saying that obama is a bitch to the defense industry?


----------



## Redfish

RandallFlagg said:


> Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?
> 
> I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "bitch".  Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....
> 
> I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!



any war in the mid east will raise oil prices, the saudis will get their money back very quickly.


----------



## Redfish

Mustang said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like it's you Communist hypocrites calling for war, not the conservatives.
> 
> Apparently war is bad, if the President has an "R" behind his name - but if he is Obama - then war is the greatest good.
> 
> As I've always said, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.  At least the Obama team has evidence.  It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.
Click to expand...


as it turns out, the WMDs from Iraq are now being used in Syria--------so Bush, the UN, and the rest of the world were right about Saddam having WMDs.   Hmmmmmmm?


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.
> 
> 3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.
> 
> Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
Click to expand...


and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?


----------



## Redfish

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.
> 
> Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.
> 
> I may have been mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I don't think you were.
> McCain and Mitt would have performed similarly to Obama in many ways, but at least progressives and liberals would have been united against their signature drone strikes and bankster bailouts. Possibly, Democrats and Republicans have outlived their usefulness to the political process in the US?
Click to expand...


of course we will never know what McCain or Romney would do.   But based on what they have said:  McCain would have us in a full scale war with Iran by now with Russia siding with Iran and the US spending billions in a no-win situation.  
Romney would have sat down with Putin and said "this is in your part of the world, you fix it".


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw the Obama speech today, as well, and was appalled.
> 
> Sounded more like a schoolboy setting the stage so that HE would not get blamed when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> And I voted for the guy twice - because I thought that both McSame and Mittens would be even worse.
> 
> I may have been mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I don't think you were.
> McCain and Mitt would have performed similarly to Obama in many ways, but at least progressives and liberals would have been united against their signature drone strikes and bankster bailouts. Possibly, Democrats and Republicans have outlived their usefulness to the political process in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course we will never know what McCain or Romney would do.   But based on what they have said:  McCain would have us in a full scale war with Iran by now with Russia siding with Iran and the US spending billions in a no-win situation.
> *Romney would have sat down with Putin and said "this is in your part of the world, you fix it*".
Click to expand...


That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change. 

What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.

Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.


----------



## paulitician

Wildcard said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, how convenient. Assad has become the Chemical Weapons Boogeyman they desperately wanted him to be. Way too convenient if you ask me. I'm not buying our Government's story on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is way too convient.  Obama's handlers need a reason to reason to "justify" actions that would otherwise be widely  opposed.
> 
> Without the lie about "chemical weapons" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - a military strike on Syria.
> 
> Just like when GWB was prez, without the lie about "weapons of mass destruction" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - an invasion of Iraq.
> 
> Basically it's the same routine, different location.
Click to expand...


Yeah, ole Assad sure did play along perfectly huh? Their story falls apart under closer scrutiny.


----------



## Redfish

RandallFlagg said:


> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember voting for Richard Nixon (the first time) because I was in the Army and he supported the military. When he ran the second time, I literally BEGGED my folks NOT to vote for the man and (shamefully) I was overseas and didn't vote.
> 
> I distinctly remember how crappy I felt when Watergate was exposed. No one was killed, no one was hurt, some guys just broke into an office at the DNC. It brought the crook down and I was glad it did.
> 
> Believe me, I know how you feel...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is our solution to this is it keep voting D's or R's,  or this country finally sees the light and realizes how both parties Fucked this place up and start voting people in with one goal in mind to help the american people. But I really doubt it though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution? I used to believe that a viable third party was an option. It is not. The "powers that be" on both the (D) and the (R) side will never allow it.
> 
> Look, it's not really about what is "best" for America. These clowns that we send to Washington - who take up residence and never leave - couldn't care less about what is "best" for the American people. They merely seek power for themselves. Hell, truth be told, they don't give a damn about "party". They care about one thing and one thing only - themselves.
> 
> These same "politicians" refuse to allow term limits. They refuse to allow a third party. They mask their "work" (and I use that term very loosely) in such legalese detail that the majority of Americans don't have the remotest idea what the hell they even do.
> 
> You have people "serving" in DC that haven't worked in their districts for 30-40 years. They maintain a home that they never go to. They have offices in their home districts that they RARELY visit. Politics is nothing more than a giant shell-game whose participants KNOW that they are screwing the populace and laugh about it at their K Street cocktail parties.
> 
> Some, Harry Reid for example, went to Washington DC with a net worth of $85,000. Today, he is worth somewhere in the neighborhood (he won't say exactly) of 18 million dollars. Same with Pelosi. Same with McCain. Hell I could go on for an hour.
> 
> This was NEVER how our founding Fathers envisioned it. Represenatives were to travel back and forth to DC - never taking up residence there. Now, these same "servants" live lavish lifestyles, own 3 - 4 homes, take vacations that most of us would die for, and continue on their merry way - laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> WE are not employing them as "servants of the people" they are the "Masters and WE are the Servants" and they will NEVER dilute the "pool" by adding another party. Won't happen.
> 
> The solution? There is none. WE THE PEOPLE have done this to ourselves.
Click to expand...




there is one possible solution--------TERM LIMITS.     Take away the lifetime careers in congress.   McCain and Kerry are two perfect examples for term limits.

two 6 year terms for senate and three 2 year terms for congress.   

And, cut congressional pay by half, cut staff budgets by half, eliminate congressional retirement plans and insurance plans.

serving in congress should be a temporary sacrifice for your country---not a lucrative lifetime "career".


----------



## paulitician

Hoffstra said:


> let's see if Congress comes even close to reflecting the views of the American people on this issue.
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> they are beholden to their donors, not their voters.
> 
> ....until a few months before the election.



I'm not optimistic. When's the last time our U.S. Congress voted 'No' on War? If they would debate an official Declaration of War, we would probably not go to War with Syria. But instead they'll grant the President the authority to bomb & kill once again. Same ole same ole.


----------



## Redfish

TakeAStepBack said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I don't think you were.
> McCain and Mitt would have performed similarly to Obama in many ways, but at least progressives and liberals would have been united against their signature drone strikes and bankster bailouts. Possibly, Democrats and Republicans have outlived their usefulness to the political process in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course we will never know what McCain or Romney would do.   But based on what they have said:  McCain would have us in a full scale war with Iran by now with Russia siding with Iran and the US spending billions in a no-win situation.
> *Romney would have sat down with Putin and said "this is in your part of the world, you fix it*".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change.
> 
> What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.
> 
> Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.
Click to expand...


I guess we will just have to disagree on this.    I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing.    If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.  

What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Redfish said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course we will never know what McCain or Romney would do.   But based on what they have said:  McCain would have us in a full scale war with Iran by now with Russia siding with Iran and the US spending billions in a no-win situation.
> *Romney would have sat down with Putin and said "this is in your part of the world, you fix it*".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change.
> 
> What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.
> 
> Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we will just have to disagree on this.    I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing.    If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.
> 
> What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.
Click to expand...


We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.


----------



## paulitician

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nonsense. If you believe that, you clearly do not understand what is going on right now regarding Syria. This isn't a US call to make. This is about geopolitics of the region. We're involved because our allies requested it and have probably offered some rather nice deals for contracts should we comes through with regime change.
> 
> What you're seeing in western politics (our govt.) is a terrible poker hand on their part. They do not have the capability to execute a regime change with the same level of tact (if thats what you want to call it) as a former Bush and his army of neocon chickenhawks.
> 
> Romney would back McCain on a full scale war I would bet my last dollar on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we will just have to disagree on this.    I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing.    If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.
> 
> What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.
Click to expand...


You are Spot-On.


----------



## Kondor3

So, with a survey score of 167 to 6 (as I write this) in favor of Peace, instead of Obama's strike-plan...

And with folks on the Left, the Right, and the Center, all incensed, over the possibility of the Obama Administration proceeding, against the clear Will of the American People...

Is it safe to say that the luster and sheen has finally worn off the Messiah facade, insofar as some of our resident ObamaBots are concerned?


----------



## Katzndogz

RandallFlagg said:


> Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?
> 
> I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "bitch".  Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....
> 
> I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!



Did you hear that from John Kerry?   Doesn't that require a belief that John Kerry isn't lying?


----------



## Redfish

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just heard that the Saudi's have agreed to "finance" the operation in Syria. My, My, My...what does that make us?
> 
> I guess it's true, we ARE Saudi Arabia's "bitch".  Just keep collecting those petro dollars.....
> 
> I'll say it once again for the cheap seats: This thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hear that from John Kerry?   Doesn't that require a belief that John Kerry isn't lying?
Click to expand...


its probably true,  any war in the mid east will drive up the price of oil.  The Saudis know this and they need a new fleet of mercedes for the royal family.


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## paulitician

MisterBeale said:


>



Yeah, so many Americans have a warped mentality on the whole War issue. I'm pretty sure if a nation decided to start bombing the U.S., Americans would consider it an act of War.


----------



## Kondor3

Agreed. The number of clowns who hide behind a nit-picking, word-smithing uber-Literalism is staggering. Just staggering.


----------



## MisterBeale

Why do the partisans insist on making this a partisan issue?  Why can't people wake up and finally see that there is no difference in parties?  This poll clearly shows that our interests are really one, and not the same as the global elites.  We have more in common with the average citizen of Syria than the interests of the ruling elites of the globe, be they the media elites that try to get us to believe that war is a good idea, the financial elites that fund the media, because war is good for their bottom line, or the political elites that make the whole thing happen because they are paid very well for their service and to do what they are told. 

If Romney had been elected President, the elites at the CFR, and the foreign policy wonks that control international finance and international business would be directing him to do the same thing.  He would probably be going directly after Iran though, instead of this circuitous indirect route via it's ally Syria.  There really is no difference to the preemptive imperialistic war making doctrine.  I told everyone  back during the primaries when they still had a chance to AVOID war by voting for Paul in the primaries.  If you voted for Obama, you were going to get war in Syria.  If you voted for Romney, you WERE going to get war in Iran.  It was a fact.  They both work for the same people.  The both work for the international bankers and military-industrial complex.  There is nothing partisan about this.  If there was, the US would not always find itself in a war.  THE PEOPLE WOULD STOP IT.  For Christ sakes. look at this unscientific poll, and yet, we will still have our nation destroyed over this.  

The majority didn't want the affordable care act either, it was never about health care, it was about insurance companies and the government getting a bigger slice of the pie.  So it is true about this war.  We all know it isn't about chemical weapons or "innocent civilians."  It is a distraction from all the other important issues on the hill, a distraction from the economy.  It is also a golden opportunity for an elite few to make a buck, same as always.  But it will ruin the rest of us.


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.
> 
> Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas.  Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."
Click to expand...


The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike. 

         The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.
> 
> Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?
Click to expand...


Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.


----------



## paulitician

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
Click to expand...


I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.


----------



## paulitician

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas.  Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.
> 
> The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.
Click to expand...


We will escalate the War and it will cause more innocent civilian deaths. And we shouldn't be 'punishing' anyone. Assad and Syria have done nothing to our Nation. What if a nation decides it's time to 'punish' the U.S., and begins bombing? What would your reaction be?


----------



## Redfish

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
Click to expand...




our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.   

this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.


----------



## paulitician

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...


Most Americans hate reality. They just go along everyday believing we don't routinely kill innocent men, women, and children all around the World. They just can't accept that reality. They pretend our bombs are only killing the bad guys. While it is true we're killing some bad guys, it is also true that we're killing many civilians in the process. 

If Americans were exposed to the graphic photos and videos showing all the children we've brutally murdered, they would very likely gain a whole new perspective on War. But of course our MSM doesn't show them the ugly truth. It simply shows them what they want them to see. Personally, i won't support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name.


----------



## MisterBeale

It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a New Middle East"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw]General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Camp

paulitician said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we will just have to disagree on this.    I do not believe that Romney would spend a billion dollars that we don't have on a sure-to-fail feel-good bombing.    If the rest of the arabs want Assad removed let them do it.
> 
> What you are advocating is exactly what we tried in Egypt and Libya------and now the radical muslim brotherhood is in control of those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are Spot-On.
Click to expand...

Not spot on at all. Spot off. Muslim Brotherhood is not in control of Egypt or Libya. All that analysis and it is closed with a ridiculously misleading conclusion. Egypt military took out the elected muslim brotherhood officials and threw them in jail and took control of the country. Brotherhood supporters were shot down in the streets or arrested when they protested. Libya is a no man's land with nobody in charge.


----------



## rhodescholar

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> We simply seem to have this plan for regime change for countries who do not take orders from us in the ME. And our plan for each is do as we say or we turn you into another Iraq. We could care less about the life of a single person in Syria, man or woman or child.



You're mentally ill trolling feces, who has no intelligence and lies in every post like the turd you are.

Why don't you tell us about your support for hamas and hezbollah?


----------



## Uncensored2008

U2Edge said:


> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.



We will "save" them by blowing their arms and legs off with high explosives?


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.
> 
> There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas.  Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.
> 
> The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.
Click to expand...


They only have to save ONE rocket launcher to launch another chemical attack.  And the will save a lot more than one.


----------



## B. Kidd

Hoffstra said:


> let's see if Congress comes even close to reflecting the views of the American people on this issue.
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> they are beholden to their donors, not their voters.
> 
> ....until a few months before the election.




We'll see how many Congress critters are beholden to the Defense Industry lobbyists, thatz fer' sure!
This upcoming vote will be a good guage as to what extent crony capitalism is destroying our country.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Not spot on at all. Spot off. Muslim Brotherhood is not in control of Egypt or Libya.



Obama's faction overplayed it's hand in Egypt. BECAUSE they destroyed tourism with their Islamic extremism, this utterly destroyed the economy. The military had little choice but act. So Obama's Muslim Brotherhood lost control of Egypt.

However, despite your fiction, they remain quite powerful in Libya



> All that analysis and it is closed with a ridiculously misleading conclusion. Egypt military took out the elected muslim brotherhood officials and threw them in jail and took control of the country. Brotherhood supporters were shot down in the streets or arrested when they protested. Libya is a no man's land with nobody in charge.



Obama's faction was not shot when they "protested," but rather when they staged a violent rampage, murdering, looting, and raping across the land, in a way that would make Muhammad himself smile.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RandallFlagg said:


> dukect45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember voting for Richard Nixon (the first time) because I was in the Army and he supported the military. When he ran the second time, I literally BEGGED my folks NOT to vote for the man and (shamefully) I was overseas and didn't vote.
> 
> I distinctly remember how crappy I felt when Watergate was exposed. No one was killed, no one was hurt, some guys just broke into an office at the DNC. It brought the crook down and I was glad it did.
> 
> Believe me, I know how you feel...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is our solution to this is it keep voting D's or R's,  or this country finally sees the light and realizes how both parties Fucked this place up and start voting people in with one goal in mind to help the american people. But I really doubt it though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution? I used to believe that a viable third party was an option. It is not. The "powers that be" on both the (D) and the (R) side will never allow it.
> 
> Look, it's not really about what is "best" for America. These clowns that we send to Washington - who take up residence and never leave - couldn't care less about what is "best" for the American people. They merely seek power for themselves. Hell, truth be told, they don't give a damn about "party". They care about one thing and one thing only - themselves.
> 
> These same "politicians" refuse to allow term limits. They refuse to allow a third party. They mask their "work" (and I use that term very loosely) in such legalese detail that the majority of Americans don't have the remotest idea what the hell they even do.
> 
> You have people "serving" in DC that haven't worked in their districts for 30-40 years. They maintain a home that they never go to. They have offices in their home districts that they RARELY visit. Politics is nothing more than a giant shell-game whose participants KNOW that they are screwing the populace and laugh about it at their K Street cocktail parties.
> 
> Some, Harry Reid for example, went to Washington DC with a net worth of $85,000. Today, he is worth somewhere in the neighborhood (he won't say exactly) of 18 million dollars. Same with Pelosi. Same with McCain. Hell I could go on for an hour.
> 
> This was NEVER how our founding Fathers envisioned it. Represenatives were to travel back and forth to DC - never taking up residence there. Now, these same "servants" live lavish lifestyles, own 3 - 4 homes, take vacations that most of us would die for, and continue on their merry way - laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> WE are not employing them as "servants of the people" they are the "Masters and WE are the Servants" and they will NEVER dilute the "pool" by adding another party. Won't happen.
> 
> The solution? There is none. WE THE PEOPLE have done this to ourselves.
Click to expand...


And the dirty game they've played so long has completely pushed out rational folks, who can't possibly compete with all the backstabbing and dedication to aggrandizement. 

We have fooled ourselves long enough with letters to our congressmen and the hope of a third party. It's out of control, and a revolution is needed, not a myopic OWS. Good luck everybody.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

LOL!

President Obumbler drew the red line.  But now he denies it.  

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?  Yes.  We shall.  The FACT:  
versus the FICTION:  
Fucking liars lie.   This explains the transparency of the latest Obama lie.  

Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for _doody_, Carville speaks.

The line is somehow kinda familiar:

Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics



I love these lolberals.

They're funny.  Not credible in any way.  But funny.


----------



## B. Kidd

IlarMeilyr said:


> LOL!
> 
> President Obumbler drew the red line.  But now he denies it.
> 
> Fucking liars lie.
> 
> He sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so now he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for doody, Carville speaks.
> 
> The line is somehow kinda familiar:
> 
> Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> I love these lolberals.
> 
> They're funny.  Not credible in any way.  But funny.




Carville is not as sharp as he used to be......has lost a couple of steps in his old age.


----------



## KissMy

We already sending my tax dollars to aid the Syrian people. The United States has provided the Syrian people with over $1 billion since the crisis began. Now the refugees have increased 10 fold & so will the aid. This will cost us billions more if we do nothing.

If we can remove Assad for around the $1.1 billion we spent overthrowing Qudaffe, I am all for it. We will be money ahead of aiding refugees. Plus we will benefit greatly from the Qatar pipelines Assad & Russia are blocking. I am for allowing Obama to spend up to $5 billion to get rid of the Assad regime however he sees fit.

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Caspian Sea region, France & Most of the EU want a pipeline through Syria. This pipeline will greatly reduce energy profits of & demand from Russia & Iran. Also Iraq, Turkey & Jordan want the over 4.5 million refugees driven out of Syria by chemical weapons to return. Aljazeera also says Syrian refugees & rebels also want the USA to attack.

The our military budget is almost double that of most other presidents. When Obama wants to slow the rate of increase in military spending, idiots scream bloody murder that he is weak & inviting attacks on US. When he want's to use it to project strength, win US friends, allies, energy & economic benefits, the idiots scream the same stupid B.S. Military spending is not an entitlement program, it is to help serve your country.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

IlarMeilyr said:


> Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for _doody_, Carville speaks.
> 
> The line is somehow kinda familiar:
> 
> Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> I love these lolberals.
> 
> They're funny.  Not credible in any way.  But funny.



BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama. 

That's what I was thinking. People, including myself, have thought that it would have been worse with McCain. But maybe that's just what we needed a weak president like McCain shooting off his mouth all the time about war, where he would have eventually been beaten down, before this got out of hand.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay, a year ago Obama draws a red line in the sand, using the Presidential "we".

This week he denies he drew a red line and says the world drew it.  And his credibility isn't at stake but it's the world's credibilty at stake.

The world doesn't seem to have much stomach for acknowledging that it has its own red line though.  So far nobody seems to be rushing to join us in enforcing that red line whether that speaks to credibility or not.

So our goal is:

Days not weeks
No boots on the ground.
No regime change
No mandates
Have no idea what it is we are supposed to accomplish
Have no idea what criteria will determine we have accomplished it.

And all this time broadcasting to Assad, "HEY ASSAD!!!  We're gonna bomb something so get your critical stuff like your air force out of the way and be sure to move a lot of attractive targets into areas where any attack from us will harm the maximum number of civilians, especailly kids.

Remembering a line from "Iron Eagle" by a militant Islamic colonel:  "The American naivete never ceases to amaze me."

Ya'll hear all that snickering hanging in the air out there?


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not spot on at all. Spot off. Muslim Brotherhood is not in control of Egypt or Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's faction overplayed it's hand in Egypt. BECAUSE they destroyed tourism with their Islamic extremism, this utterly destroyed the economy. The military had little choice but act. So Obama's Muslim Brotherhood lost control of Egypt.
> 
> However, despite your fiction, they remain quite powerful in Libya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that analysis and it is closed with a ridiculously misleading conclusion. Egypt military took out the elected muslim brotherhood officials and threw them in jail and took control of the country. Brotherhood supporters were shot down in the streets or arrested when they protested. Libya is a no man's land with nobody in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's faction was not shot when they "protested," but rather when they staged a violent rampage, murdering, looting, and raping across the land, in a way that would make Muhammad himself smile.
Click to expand...

Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong. So what is left to give any cred to your Libya claim. More misinformation. Muslim brotherhood is not in control of Libya. Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.


----------



## RandallFlagg

QuickHitCurepon said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for _doody_, Carville speaks.
> 
> The line is somehow kinda familiar:
> 
> Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> I love these lolberals.
> 
> They're funny.  Not credible in any way.  But funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama.
> 
> That's what I was thinking. People, including myself, have thought that it would have been worse with McCain. But maybe that's just what we needed a weak president like McCain shooting off his mouth all the time about war, where he would have eventually been beaten down, before this got out of hand.
Click to expand...


Republicans are far more likely to support this "action" than the reverse of democrats supporting action by a republican president. O'Reilly is essentially correct. Boxer, a teeth gnashing liberal democrat, would NEVER support a republican for ANY reason, especially military action. However, the "action" doesn't matter. It is BARRY that wants it - so she's "all in". Got to support the "legacy".

One thing you can nearly ALWAYS count on - democrats will ALWAYS put PARTY ahead of the COUNTRY. ALWAYS.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, a year ago Obama draws a red line in the sand, using the Presidential "we".
> 
> This week he denies he drew a red line and says the world drew it.  And his credibility isn't at stake but it's the world's credibilty at stake.
> 
> The world doesn't seem to have much stomach for acknowledging that it has its own red line though.  So far nobody seems to be rushing to join us in enforcing that red line whether that speaks to credibility or not.
> 
> So our goal is:
> 
> Days not weeks
> No boots on the ground.
> No regime change
> No mandates
> Have no idea what it is we are supposed to accomplish
> Have no idea what criteria will determine we have accomplished it.
> 
> And all this time broadcasting to Assad, "HEY ASSAD!!!  We're gonna bomb something so get your critical stuff like your air force out of the way and be sure to move a lot of attractive targets into areas where any attack from us will harm the maximum number of civilians, especailly kids.
> 
> Remembering a line from "Iron Eagle" by a militant Islamic colonel:  "The American naivete never ceases to amaze me."
> 
> Ya'll hear all that snickering hanging in the air out there?



Obama says NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

Of course, this is the same feller who said "red line" but now flatly denies that it was HE who said it.

So, all in all, we're good.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RandallFlagg said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, he sees that America doesn't buy his bullshit, so he sends out the minions and, prompt to report for _doody_, Carville speaks.
> 
> The line is somehow kinda familiar:
> 
> Carville: People Are Freaking Out About Syria Because Of Bush And Iraq | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> I love these lolberals.
> 
> They're funny.  Not credible in any way.  But funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama.
> 
> That's what I was thinking. People, including myself, have thought that it would have been worse with McCain. But maybe that's just what we needed a weak president like McCain shooting off his mouth all the time about war, where he would have eventually been beaten down, before this got out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans are far more likely to support this "action" than the reverse of democrats supporting action by a republican president. O'Reilly is essentially correct. Boxer, a teeth gnashing liberal democrat, would NEVER support a republican for ANY reason, especially military action. However, the "action" doesn't matter. It is BARRY that wants it - so she's "all in". Got to support the "legacy".
> 
> One thing you can nearly ALWAYS count on - democrats will ALWAYS put PARTY ahead of the COUNTRY. ALWAYS.
Click to expand...


The whole fiscal cliff debacle really hurt us, and what over a few billion dollars that won't change the debt problem one iota. They found a better way to take us over the cliff.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, a year ago Obama draws a red line in the sand, using the Presidential "we".
> 
> This week he denies he drew a red line and says the world drew it.  And his credibility isn't at stake but it's the world's credibilty at stake.
> 
> The world doesn't seem to have much stomach for acknowledging that it has its own red line though.  So far nobody seems to be rushing to join us in enforcing that red line whether that speaks to credibility or not.
> 
> So our goal is:
> 
> Days not weeks
> No boots on the ground.
> No regime change
> No mandates
> Have no idea what it is we are supposed to accomplish
> Have no idea what criteria will determine we have accomplished it.
> 
> And all this time broadcasting to Assad, "HEY ASSAD!!!  We're gonna bomb something so get your critical stuff like your air force out of the way and be sure to move a lot of attractive targets into areas where any attack from us will harm the maximum number of civilians, especailly kids.
> 
> Remembering a line from "Iron Eagle" by a militant Islamic colonel:  "The American naivete never ceases to amaze me."
> 
> Ya'll hear all that snickering hanging in the air out there?



Excellent points.

I have been utterly amazed at the "so-called" plan with these strikes. Here's the biggest "non-goal" that I have taken away from this "so-called" plan"

* "We are not seeking regime change in Syria"*

This is the language of the mentally insane.

Imagine for a minute, Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Here they are, facing thousands of Mexican soldiers and Davy Crockett says "Don't shoot at General Santayana!! Shoot his horse!! That'll stop 'em!"

Barry, and those who advise him, have got to be the dumbest people on the planet. Dumber than dirt.  Is it any wonder why we are the laughing stock of the world??


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong.



Do you actually think yourself clever?

I "admit" no such thing. The Brotherhood was driven from ruling, VERY recently. You want to pretend that "no MB to here, move along.." 

I understand, misinformation and outright lies have carried Obama this far, no reason to change your strategy.



> So what is left to give any cred to your Libya claim.



Dunno, you lied about Egypt - does that lend credibility to my claim, or just shoot yours?



> More misinformation. Muslim brotherhood is not in control of Libya.



Now there is some spin - you didn't outright lie - you just twisted the facts beyond recognition.

No one cares that the MB isn't in control of Libya - they are a major force and could easily assume power at any point.



> Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.



Yeah, despite what the propaganda claims, Libya is in a full blown civil war.

You are of the Obama Fedayeen, serving The One...


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually think yourself clever?
> 
> I "admit" no such thing. The Brotherhood was driven from ruling, VERY recently. You want to pretend that "no MB to here, move along.."
> 
> I understand, misinformation and outright lies have carried Obama this far, no reason to change your strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is left to give any cred to your Libya claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunno, you lied about Egypt - does that lend credibility to my claim, or just shoot yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More misinformation. Muslim brotherhood is not in control of Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now there is some spin - you didn't outright lie - you just twisted the facts beyond recognition.
> 
> No one cares that the MB isn't in control of Libya - they are a major force and could easily assume power at any point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, despite what the propaganda claims, Libya is in a full blown civil war.
> 
> You are of the Obama Fedayeen, serving The One...
Click to expand...


I was responding to comments made by other posters. You took it on yourself to inject yourself into the conversation and challanged my comments. I responded to you. I showed how you were wrong and in your bungled response you have admitted you were wrong. You have tried to move the line. MB is not in control of Egypt as you claimed, so you made it "was in charge". MB is not in control of Libya, so you made it "they could easily assume power". So now, unable to give an intelligent response, you revert to name calling and and allege I am an Obama Fedayeen. If you are going to inject yourself into a conversation or start an arguement, it would benifit you greatly to do so when and on topics you have some actual knowledge about. Stumbling and bungling through life is not a good direction.


----------



## RandallFlagg

I would LOVE for the staunch Barry defenders to take a couple of minutes and read this, by General Martin Dempsey in July of this war, stating what "military intervention" in Syria would mean.

Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


July 22nd, 2013
08:26 PM ET
Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions
By Jamie Crawford

United States military involvement in Syria would likely cost billions of dollars and carry a range of risks for the forces involved, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey said in a letter released Monday.

"I know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly," Dempsey wrote in the letter to Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is no less than an act of war."

Dempsey's letter was in response to a request by Levin and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to provide his assessments of possible scenarios for future involvement in the Syrian civil war.

But it also came with a warning for a military now in a second decade at war.

"We have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."

Establishing a no-fly zone in Syria would cost $500 million initially, while "averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year," Dempsey said of an operation that would limit as much as possible the aerial bombing capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Dempsey said establishing a no-fly zone could result in the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require personnel recovery forces in Syria. "It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires - mortars, artillery, and missiles," he wrote.

Options to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical weapons would also include lethal force through the destruction of known stockpiles, movement interdiction, or through the physical seizure of known chemical weapons sites.

Dempsey said this option would also require a no-fly zone along with "air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines."

*"Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," Dempsey wrote. "Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month."*

It is extremely rare for the costs of such operations to be laid out in such detail, and Dempsey also noted the potential costs of less expansive actions the United State could take.

Training, advising and supporting opposition forces could require as many as several thousand troops at an estimated cost of $500 million per year initially, Dempsey said.

Options for establishing safe zones or buffer areas to allow for the training of opposition forces, as well as areas for the safe distribution of humanitarian aid, would require a limited no-fly zone to keep the areas safe from the Assad regime's aerial bombardments. U.S. ground forces would be needed to defend the safe zones, Dempsey said.

This too, could cost a great deal of money and put lives at risk Dempsey wrote.

"A limited no-fly zone coupled with U.S. ground forces would push the costs over $1 billion per month," he wrote. "Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added problem of regime surface fires into the zones, killing more refugees due to their concentration. The zones could also become operational bases for extremists."

Dempsey said the use of periodic and limited strikes against regime military assets would also cost "billions" depending on the duration of such operations.

The letter comes at complex time in the evolution of the Obama administration's policy on Syria. Although the administration has recently signaled its readiness to provide certain arms to vetted factions of the Syrian opposition, there has been no movement of U.S. weapons due to concerns on Capitol Hill about how the program would work.

But Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, signaled there may be movement on the issue in the coming days.

"The House Intelligence Committee has very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success," Rogers said in a written statement Monday. "After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations."

McCain put a hold on Dempsey's nomination for a second term last week until he received greater detail from Dempsey about the various options available to intervene in Syria. It was unclear whether Dempsey's letter answered McCain's questions.


Funny, how quickly things change, isn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> I was responding to comments made by other posters. You took it on yourself to inject yourself into the conversation and challanged my comments. I responded to you. I showed how you were wrong and in your bungled response you have admitted you were wrong. You have tried to move the line. MB is not in control of Egypt as you claimed, so you made it "was in charge". MB is not in control of Libya, so you made it "they could easily assume power". So now, unable to give an intelligent response, you revert to name calling and and allege I am an Obama Fedayeen. If you are going to inject yourself into a conversation or start an arguement, it would benifit you greatly to do so when and on topics you have some actual knowledge about. Stumbling and bungling through life is not a good direction.



Wow, you're really not very good at this. 

You spin and sputter, and become haughty - then fail to address the actual points.

Enjoy jousting at straw men.


----------



## High_Gravity

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?


----------



## RandallFlagg

High_Gravity said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?



Absolutely. One problem, however. World "leaders" signed a pact some years ago that they wouldn't target each other. Guess it isn't "civilized". remember, these "leaders" are FAR more important than the average man, woman or child.

I always thought that that was the "real" reason forgoing into Iraq - when Saddam put out a "hit order" on George H W Bush. Little Bush swore he'd get Hussein for that - and he did.


----------



## Spoonman

i'm just curious.  have the 7 people here who support military action in syria reported to their local recruiting offices to enlist?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Spoonman said:


> i'm just curious.  have the 7 people here who support military action in syria reported to their local recruiting offices to enlist?




Yeah, right. These pussies are more than willing to let "someone else" do the fighting and dying for them.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Spoonman said:


> i'm just curious.  have the 7 people here who support military action in syria reported to their local recruiting offices to enlist?



Well, in fairness, the risk is entirely to the cruise missiles and other "shells" we lob into Syria from far away.

No boots means no boots.

Well, unless The ONE means "no boots" the same way he means that he didn't say "no red line."


----------



## IlarMeilyr

High_Gravity said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?



but 

but 

but

That could make the cruise missile all messy.


----------



## KissMy

RandallFlagg said:


> I would LOVE for the staunch Barry defenders to take a couple of minutes and read this, by General Martin Dempsey in July of this war, stating what "military intervention" in Syria would mean.
> 
> Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs



This is such a bias slanted steaming pile of B.S. Our biggest airbases are just across the borders in Turkey, Iraq & Israel. This has the potential to be the cheapest bombing or no fly cap in recent history. We attacked Libya for 227 days & toppled Quadaffe with only $1.1 billion US. This war is not going to be any where near a billion a month or last more than 2 months. 

If we don't use our military, then cut their spending in half.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total bs misinformation being used to attack Obama. There is plenty to attack him on, but you admit your claim of muslim brotherhood in Egypt it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually think yourself clever?
> 
> I "admit" no such thing. The Brotherhood was driven from ruling, VERY recently. You want to pretend that "no MB to here, move along.."
> 
> I understand, misinformation and outright lies have carried Obama this far, no reason to change your strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno, you lied about Egypt - does that lend credibility to my claim, or just shoot yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is some spin - you didn't outright lie - you just twisted the facts beyond recognition.
> 
> No one cares that the MB isn't in control of Libya - they are a major force and could easily assume power at any point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, their HQ's were attacked and destroyed by opponents only a few months ago. Truthfully, they are making some gains, but that changes from week to week and they are far from having any kind of control. So the facts you need to make your point are bs misinformation with the facts being the exact oppisit of your claims. I love your framing of "Obama's faction" being responsible for "a violent rampage of murder, looting and raping across the land...". Your priortity is hate. It is not country or truth in any sense of the way. Simple hate for hates sake. The use of such blatant lies and misinformation makes it obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, despite what the propaganda claims, Libya is in a full blown civil war.
> 
> You are of the Obama Fedayeen, serving The One...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to comments made by other posters. You took it on yourself to inject yourself into the conversation and challanged my comments. I responded to you. I showed how you were wrong and in your bungled response you have admitted you were wrong. You have tried to move the line. MB is not in control of Egypt as you claimed, so you made it "was in charge". MB is not in control of Libya, so you made it "they could easily assume power". So now, unable to give an intelligent response, you revert to name calling and and allege I am an Obama Fedayeen. If you are going to inject yourself into a conversation or start an arguement, it would benifit you greatly to do so when and on topics you have some actual knowledge about. Stumbling and bungling through life is not a good direction.
Click to expand...


It is useless to perpetually debate about war and give only the short-term gains as your examples. Short-term gains in war are less than .1% of the debate.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KissMy said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would LOVE for the staunch Barry defenders to take a couple of minutes and read this, by General Martin Dempsey in July of this war, stating what "military intervention" in Syria would mean.
> 
> Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a bias slanted steaming pile of B.S. Our biggest airbases are just across the borders in Turkey & Israel. This has the potential to be the cheapest bombing or no fly cap in recent history. We toppled Quadaffe with only $1.1 billion US. This war is not going to be any where near a billion a month or last more than 2 months.
> 
> If we don't use our military, then cut their spending in half.
Click to expand...


^ unless things don't work out as expected.

Some shit about "unintended consequences."

Or maybe, some shit about perfectly expected consequences.

We lob a cruise missile of so into Syria:

(1)  Iran fucks with Israel.  The war broadens.
(2)  Syria does another round of gassing innocent civilians.  Then what the fuck do we do?  My guess?  The war broadens.
(3)  Russia restocks some of the destroyed stockpile of weapons and materiel.  Syria then fucks with Israel AND it persists in gassing its own innocent civilians.  what then?  My guess?  The war broadens.
(4)  Pick a few.  The options are rather numerous.  The punch line rarely changes.


----------



## RandallFlagg

IlarMeilyr said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm just curious.  have the 7 people here who support military action in syria reported to their local recruiting offices to enlist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness, the risk is entirely to the cruise missiles and other "shells" we lob into Syria from far away.
> 
> No boots means no boots.
> 
> Well, unless The ONE means "no boots" the same way he means that he didn't say "no red line."
Click to expand...


Well, here (at least as I understand it) is the "basic" deal of the way this thing works. Once Congress authorizes the president to engage, then they are out of it. They have done their jobs. If Barry SHOULD decide to employ troops, that is solely at his discretion.

Congress, after the 90 day period, could vote to defund the action, but probably wouldn't. Congress threatened to defund Iraq and Afghanistan a couple of times - and actually DID during Vietnam, but it didn't stop military action.

Probably why Kerry told the Senate committee that "Saudi Arabia" has already agreed to fund the mercenary actions. Funny, Kuwait and the rest of the Arab league were going to "foot the bill" for the Iraq war. Remember that? We were going to "take Iraq oil to pay for the war?"

Guess the check must be in the mail from the Arabs, right?


----------



## RandallFlagg

KissMy said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would LOVE for the staunch Barry defenders to take a couple of minutes and read this, by General Martin Dempsey in July of this war, stating what "military intervention" in Syria would mean.
> 
> Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a bias slanted steaming pile of B.S. Our biggest airbases are just across the borders in Turkey & Israel. This has the potential to be the cheapest bombing or no fly cap in recent history. We toppled Quadaffe with only $1.1 billion US. This war is not going to be any where near a billion a month or last more than 2 months.
> 
> If we don't use our military, then cut their spending in half.
Click to expand...


Well, if it's a "steaming pile of B.S." as you say, remember where it came from: Martin Dempsey, Chairman; Joint Chiefs of Staff and STAUNCH supporter of Barry.

Give him a call and let him know. I served under the man in the 80s. He IS an idiot.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

High_Gravity said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?



Maybe, they are all tied up in Pakistan and countries in that region. Time to invest in companies building drones.


----------



## RandallFlagg

QuickHitCurepon said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, they are all tied up in Pakistan and countries in that region. Time to invest in companies building drones.
Click to expand...


This military is stretched to the breaking point now, with cuts in Defense, roll back of troop strengths, retention losses and just flat out "tiredness".

But what the hell, let's get involved in yet another meaningless conflict.


----------



## The T

RandallFlagg said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drone Assad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, they are all tied up in Pakistan and countries in that region. Time to invest in companies building drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This military is stretched to the breaking point now, with cuts in Defense, roll back of troop strengths, retention losses and just flat out "tiredness".
> 
> But what the hell, let's get involved in yet another meaningless conflict.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed let Obama complete his destruction of what he doesn't understand but loathes. Nevermind he leaves this Republic vulnerable, and he will be closer to achieving his goal of destruction of US.


----------



## KissMy

2007 The New Yorker: "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East.... The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources currently valued at over $170 Trillion US dollars.

In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplied of natural gas.


----------



## georgephillip

MisterBeale said:


> It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a New Middle East"
> General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube


*Worth a few minutes to read:*

"'Hegemony is as old as Mankind' -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor.

"The term 'New Middle East' was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the 'Greater Middle East.'

"This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. 

"The term and conceptualization of the 'New Middle East,' was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a 'New Middle East' was being launched from Lebanon.

"This announcement was a confirmation of an *Anglo-American-Israeli 'military roadmap*' in the Middle East. 

"This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating *an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.*

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research


----------



## Hoffstra

I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.

We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.

This is a BAD thing coming our way.


----------



## Geaux4it

Hoffstra said:


> I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.
> 
> We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.
> 
> This is a BAD thing coming our way.



I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.

Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day

Smoke em if you got em

-Geaux


----------



## Hoffstra

Geaux4it said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.
> 
> We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.
> 
> This is a BAD thing coming our way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.
> 
> Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day
> 
> Smoke em if you got em
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


ugg


----------



## KissMy

Geaux4it said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.
> 
> We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.
> 
> This is a BAD thing coming our way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.
> 
> Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day
> 
> Smoke em if you got em
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


What would Reagan do?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Hoffstra said:


> I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.
> 
> We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.
> 
> This is a BAD thing coming our way.



Agreed. Bad things coming.


    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

     -William Butler Yeats


----------



## KissMy

Al Jazeera live blog: 

World leaders discussed the Syria crisis over dinner at the G20 summit but failed to bridge their deeply entrenched divisions over a US push for military action against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

*Russia:* We cannot accept US proofs of chemical weapon used in Syria, they are far from being convincing. It is impossible to say that very many states support the idea of a military operation. 

*China:* War cannot solve the problem in Syria, political solution is the only way to end the Syria crisis.

*UK:* We have received new evidence that sarin gas had been used against civilians by the Syrian government.

*EU:* No military solution to the Syrian conflict. 

*UN Chief:* Providing more arms to either side is not the answer. There is no military solution.

Sounds like the UK will be siding with the USA soon.


----------



## Geaux4it

KissMy said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.
> 
> We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.
> 
> This is a BAD thing coming our way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.
> 
> Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day
> 
> Smoke em if you got em
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would Reagan do?
Click to expand...


I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept

-Geaux


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Geaux4it said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Congress will not approve and Obama goes anyway against Americans, Congress, and the International community.
> 
> Russia said they have sent additional ships to the area to make sure International law and the rule of the UN hold the day
> 
> Smoke em if you got em
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would Reagan do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

There is nothing to gain by going to war with Syria, because engineering conflicts have never worked.

Debate: Does The U.S. Have A Dog In The Fight In Syria? : NPR

Graham Allison (@6:30): ...Has anybody been able to identify a feasible American military intervention that would likely make the situation better over the long run, after we had acted than in the case we did not act?...No one has, at least to my satisfaction or Rich's* or indeed to Chairman Dempsey the chairman of the JCS, identified a feasible American military intervention, which after the fact, likely make the situation over time better than the alternative...  

*Richard Falkenrath



> Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Douglas Dillon professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, where he served as the founding dean from 1977 to 1989. Allison served as special adviser to the secretary of defense under President Reagan and as assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans under President Clinton, coordinating Defense Department strategy and policy toward Russia, Ukraine and the other states of the former Soviet Union. He has the sole distinction of having twice been awarded the Defense Department's highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal. He has written five books, including Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971).


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
Click to expand...


It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas.  Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.
> 
> The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will escalate the War and it will cause more innocent civilian deaths. And we shouldn't be 'punishing' anyone. Assad and Syria have done nothing to our Nation. What if a nation decides it's time to 'punish' the U.S., and begins bombing? What would your reaction be?
Click to expand...


             Assad is the only one escalating things by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. US military action will prevent more such attacks which could cause as much as 10,000 or 50,000 people to be killed in just one day. 

             The United States is less likely to have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION used against it in the future by punishing Assad for his use of such weapons in 2013.


----------



## U2Edge

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.   For what?  So obozo can save face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...


Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?


----------



## U2Edge

paulitician said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Americans hate reality. They just go along everyday believing we don't routinely kill innocent men, women, and children all around the World. They just can't accept that reality. They pretend our bombs are only killing the bad guys. While it is true we're killing some bad guys, it is also true that we're killing many civilians in the process.
> 
> If Americans were exposed to the graphic photos and videos showing all the children we've brutally murdered, they would very likely gain a whole new perspective on War. But of course our MSM doesn't show them the ugly truth. It simply shows them what they want them to see. Personally, i won't support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name.
Click to expand...


Reality is that the D-Day Normandy invasion killed over 20,000 French civilians. But do you think launching D-Day was a mistake?


----------



## U2Edge

Uncensored2008 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will "save" them by blowing their arms and legs off with high explosives?
Click to expand...


           Not launching the missile strike will be seen as a green light by Assad for more Sarin gas attacks. The death toll on August 21, 2013 was 1,469. But the next strike by Assad could kill 10,000 or even 50,000 in a single day. Do you want to see that happen?


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where they have moved the rocket launchers that deliver poison gas.  Or wasn't crippling their ability to use poison gas the stated purpose of this "shot across the bow."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.
> 
> The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They only have to save ONE rocket launcher to launch another chemical attack.  And the will save a lot more than one.
Click to expand...


       The goal of the missile strike is to deter further use of chemical weapons, not completely destroy all the means with which such chemicals could be delivered.


----------



## KissMy

U2Edge said:


> The goal of the missile strike is to deter further use of chemical weapons, not completely destroy all the means with which such chemicals could be delivered.



That is only the political sales job. The goal is to weaken Iran & Russia's grip on the Mideast oil.


----------



## KissMy

There will be a big collision with US in the attack on Syria.

"Davutoglu said Turkey's priority was to act according to U.N. decisions, but the country would join a coalition if there was no U.N. mandate. He said "36 or 37" countries were already discussing options, but he did not list those nations."


----------



## JWBooth

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.
> 
> The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They only have to save ONE rocket launcher to launch another chemical attack.  And the will save a lot more than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal of the missile strike is to deter further use of chemical weapons, not completely destroy all the means with which such chemicals could be delivered.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe that, I have several acres of undeveloped land on Manhattan Island that I can let go of pretty cheap.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Click to expand...


But our interest are not at risk. But if they are, acceptable risk IMO when compared to the cost we will pay. A preemptive strike is not warranted here

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States won't be targeting places like that and the Syrians can't hide all their military assets in schools, mosques and hospitals. More importantly, Syrian military forces are already engaged in a war against the rebels and must remain engaged or lose ground to the rebels. That means they can't be hiding and can be targeted in a US missile strike.
> 
> The stated purpose of the missile strike is to PUNISH Assad for using Chemicals and to deter further use of chemical weapons. Anything that degrades or takes away any of Assads military assets will accomplish that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will escalate the War and it will cause more innocent civilian deaths. And we shouldn't be 'punishing' anyone. Assad and Syria have done nothing to our Nation. What if a nation decides it's time to 'punish' the U.S., and begins bombing? What would your reaction be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assad is the only one escalating things by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. US military action will prevent more such attacks which could cause as much as 10,000 or 50,000 people to be killed in just one day.
> 
> The United States is less likely to have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION used against it in the future by punishing Assad for his use of such weapons in 2013.
Click to expand...


Not true

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will "save" them by blowing their arms and legs off with high explosives?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not launching the missile strike will be seen as a green light by Assad for more Sarin gas attacks. The death toll on August 21, 2013 was 1,469. But the next strike by Assad could kill 10,000 or even 50,000 in a single day. Do you want to see that happen?
Click to expand...


It might happen, might not. What is definite is, Russia, the UN which Obama adores, and the American people will see this as an aggressive act of war.

-Geaux


----------



## KissMy

Obama is the biggest military spending president of all time. If we are not going to stand up to Syria, Russia & Iran, then why are we wasting all this money?


----------



## georgephillip

Hoffstra said:


> I fear that Congress will NOT listen to the vast majority of the American people on this issue.
> 
> We will attack Syria, which will lead to wider war including Israel, Turkey, Iran, maybe even Russia.
> 
> This is a BAD thing coming our way.


If Obama defies Congress and the majority of US taxpayers, impeachment could be one GOOD thing coming out way.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Click to expand...

Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?


----------



## TooTall

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
Click to expand...


Probably not nearly as many as 2 or 3 hundred US Tomahawk missiles would.


----------



## JWBooth

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
Click to expand...


And when spread by incomplete destruction by Tomahawk missile? 
Or does collateral damage still not count?


----------



## TooTall

georgephillip said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a New Middle East"
> General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> *Worth a few minutes to read:*
> 
> "'Hegemony is as old as Mankind'* -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor.*
> 
> Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research
Click to expand...


Isn't ZB the advisor to Carter that oversaw the overthrow of the Shah in Iran so the Muslim Ayatollah could return to power?  As I recall, the Shah was mistreating some Russians that were making mischief in Iran, Carter didn't like that and wanted a religious leader to replace him.
How did that work out?


----------



## JWBooth

TooTall said:


> Isn't ZB the advisor to Carter that oversaw the overthrow of the Shah in Iran so the Muslim Ayatollah could return to power?  As I recall, the Shah was mistreating some Russians that were making mischief in Iran, Carter didn't like that and wanted a religious leader to replace him.
> How did that work out?



Yep, that would be him.


----------



## paulitician

U2Edge said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Click to expand...


Our National Security is not at risk. That's a stretch at best.


----------



## JWBooth

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our National Security is not at risk. That's a stretch at best.
Click to expand...

It is also absurdly silly to suggest that it is.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Click to expand...


We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?


----------



## JWBooth

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the use to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
Click to expand...


You forgot depleted uranium


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

U.S. Army Tested Chemicals on Cities, Low-Income Residents

*****Newly disclosed documents have revealed details on how the U.S. military carried out testing of chemicals on major U.S. cities during the 1950s and 1960s. Sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor of St. Louis Community College says zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed in several cities without residents knowledge. The most densely sprayed area appears to have been a housing complex for low-income people in St. Louis.Lisa Martino-Taylor: "It was pretty shocking, the level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people. Theres a lot of evidence that indicates that people in St. Louis in the city, particularly in minority communities, were subjected to military tests that was connected to a larger radiological weapons development and testing project."

Headlines for September 27, 2012 | Democracy Now!


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> That is only the political sales job. The goal is to weaken Iran & Russia's grip on the Mideast oil.



Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Russia is a massive oil exporter.

Oil reserves in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might want to rethink your conspiracy theory.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

JWBooth said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the use to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot depleted uranium
Click to expand...


Thats true. And I  just addressed Iraq, too. So many other instances of the US use of chemical weapons exist. Unbelievable, listening to Assads use of chemical weapons being used to support a war.


----------



## JWBooth

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the use to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot depleted uranium
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats true. And I  just addressed Iraq, too. So many other instances of the US use of chemical weapons exist. Unbelievable, listening to Assads use of chemical weapons being used to support a war.
Click to expand...

But the motives of US policymakers are as pure as the driven snow, and they've only killed people who were threats to Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.


----------



## jasonnfree

AzMike said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Reagan do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.
Click to expand...



Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra.  Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran.  Didn't you  kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?  Your reading assignment today junior is to  read up on the felony convictions of over 100 people in his administration.


----------



## TemplarKormac

"Over 1400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we've fabricated, this is not something that we are using as an excuse for military action  *I was elected to end wars not start them.*" -President Obama addresses the Syrian crisis from the G20 summit


----------



## paulitician

jasonnfree said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra.  Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran.  Didn't you  kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?
Click to expand...


Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.


----------



## Redfish

paulitician said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra.  Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran.  Didn't you  kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.
Click to expand...


very true,  and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.


----------



## paulitician

Redfish said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra.  Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran.  Didn't you  kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> very true,  and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.
Click to expand...


Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit.  I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell.   Okay. . ..really?

And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria?  Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions.  It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.

Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:

Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .

The Pentagon wants no part of this?

Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime.   So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?

Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.

Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote.  The strategy:  that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.

Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice.  The first time only killed a few folks.  This last time was more horrendous.  We didn't do anything the first time.  If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?


----------



## paulitician

Foxfyre said:


> Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit.  I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell.   Okay. . ..really?
> 
> And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria?  Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions.  It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.
> 
> Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:
> 
> Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .
> 
> The Pentagon wants no part of this?
> 
> Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime.   So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?
> 
> Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.
> 
> Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote.  The strategy:  that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.
> 
> Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice.  The first time only killed a few folks.  This last time was more horrendous.  We didn't do anything the first time.  If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?



False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.


----------



## Vox

U2Edge said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
Click to expand...


None of OUR business. Let his neighbours take care of it


----------



## Foxfyre

paulitician said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit.  I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell.   Okay. . ..really?
> 
> And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria?  Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions.  It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.
> 
> Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:
> 
> Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .
> 
> The Pentagon wants no part of this?
> 
> Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime.   So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?
> 
> Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.
> 
> Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote.  The strategy:  that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.
> 
> Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice.  The first time only killed a few folks.  This last time was more horrendous.  We didn't do anything the first time.  If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.
Click to expand...


And that is my worst fear.  Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used.  So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit.  What will we have accomplished?


----------



## Rocko

onless they do something to us no war.


----------



## Vox

Uncensored2008 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only the political sales job. The goal is to weaken Iran & Russia's grip on the Mideast oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Russia is a massive oil exporter.
> 
> Oil reserves in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You might want to rethink your conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


The amount of own does not change the desire to be a monoPoly in it's production.
Russia's interest here is exactly the desire to remain a monopoly - not in oil but in natural gas for Europe. If Assad fells it will be the very end of that monopoly.

If Europe wants to diversify their gas market - THEY should fight Assad for it and not US.


----------



## paulitician

Foxfyre said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit.  I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell.   Okay. . ..really?
> 
> And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria?  Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions.  It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.
> 
> Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:
> 
> Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .
> 
> The Pentagon wants no part of this?
> 
> Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime.   So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?
> 
> Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.
> 
> Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote.  The strategy:  that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.
> 
> Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice.  The first time only killed a few folks.  This last time was more horrendous.  We didn't do anything the first time.  If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is my worst fear.  Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used.  So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit.  What will we have accomplished?
Click to expand...


This War's gonna happen. The Powers-That-Be have already decided on it. Now it's just a matter of concocting a plausible story-line justification. Looks like a 'Chemical Attack' accusation will do the trick.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Redfish said:


> very true,  and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Redfish again


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vox said:


> The amount of own does not change the desire to be a monoPoly in it's production.
> Russia's interest here is exactly the desire to remain a monopoly - not in oil but in natural gas for Europe. If Assad fells it will be the very end of that monopoly.
> 
> If Europe wants to diversify their gas market - THEY should fight Assad for it and not US.



Assad is and has been a Soviet puppet, this much is true. But the Russians can strike a deal with Al Qaeda once they control Syria (with Obama's help.) So I'm not sure it poses an economic threat to them.


----------



## Spoonman

This war will be a lot bigger then just displacing assad.  it won't be an in and out. we are looking at time, money and lives.   and for what?  what is the objective? to soley remove someone we claim used gas?  by removing him, how do we make the lives of the people in syria better?  we won't.  not unless we get involved in another situation like iraq.  we've already left egyt a mess, libya too.  now syria?  sometihn is very wrong here and each one of these situations is going to haunt us down the road.  we haven't even considered the secondary effects yet


----------



## Vox

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of own does not change the desire to be a monoPoly in it's production.
> Russia's interest here is exactly the desire to remain a monopoly - not in oil but in natural gas for Europe. If Assad fells it will be the very end of that monopoly.
> 
> If Europe wants to diversify their gas market - THEY should fight Assad for it and not US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assad is and has been a Soviet puppet, this much is true. But the Russians can strike a deal with Al Qaeda once they control Syria (with Obama's help.) So I'm not sure it poses an economic threat to them.
Click to expand...


He has been soviet puppet and remained a Russian one for the very same reasons . Don't be fooled into the thinking that Russia is anything else than USSR in it's geopolitical aspiration. "gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"

And yes, Russians do not have a visible perspective of striking the deal with Al Quaeda because of Afganistan and Chechnya.


----------



## R.C. Christian

francoHFW said:


> War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.



You're a terrorist supporting traitor, and from the looks of it, that filthy pile of purple shit you call New York is full of garbage just like you. You should put yourself on the curb and see if the waste company picks you up. Why do you want to die so badly? Why are so loyal to Barry that you can't take an honest look at the world around you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vox said:


> He has been soviet puppet and remained a Russian one for the very same reasons . Don't be fooled into the thinking that Russia is anything else than USSR in it's geopolitical aspiration.



Oh, I'm not. I refer to Putin as a Stalinist - and it isn't hyperbole.



> "gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"



The Russians have never had the culture of Rome.


----------



## Foxfyre

paulitician said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> very true,  and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.
Click to expand...


At least Reagan took responsibility.  In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised?  Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?

Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.

He's a putz.


----------



## Redfish

Foxfyre said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> very true,  and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least Reagan took responsibility.  In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised?  Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?
> 
> Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.
> 
> He's a putz.
Click to expand...


you just don't get it.   As the first black president obama cannot be held responsible for anything------to do so would be racist.

We must all declare our love and devotion to chairman maobama or suffer the consequences.


----------



## Camp

The war is almost over, or at least put on delay. Everyone is a looser, but being given the chance to declare victory. Everyone accept those on the Syrian battlefield. No victory for them.


----------



## Redfish

Camp said:


> The war is almost over, or at least put on delay. Everyone is a looser, but being given the chance to declare victory. Everyone accept those on the Syrian battlefield. No victory for them.



I want some of what you are drinking


----------



## Vox

Uncensored2008 said:


> "gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians have never had the culture of Rome.
Click to expand...


That is not what I meant and not what is behind the phrase of the XV century monk 

It's a concept for the drive to be a superpower:
http://www.ksk.edu.ee/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/KVUOA_Toimetised_12-Laats.pdf


----------



## Foxfyre

Redfish said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least Reagan took responsibility.  In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised?  Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?
> 
> Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.
> 
> He's a putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you just don't get it.   As the first black president obama cannot be held responsible for anything------to do so would be racist.
> 
> We must all declare our love and devotion to chairman maobama or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...


As far back as the 2008 campaign, that was my fear.  I wanted the first minority group President to be a conservative because then we would have a President who happened to be black or Hispanic or of Asian descent or whatever.  Nobody would have deferred to him because of race.  Look how the left treats ALL conservative black people now.

But a liberal black President?   Now we have a BLACK President and that means he is untouchable, uncriticizable, and must be adulated at all times.

I didn't want a BLACK President we would have to defer to because he was black.  I didn't have any problem with having a PRESIDENT who happened to have black skin.

But mostly I want a President with the character to own his words, his convictions, his ideals, his principles and who accepts the responsiblity of the position as it was constitutionally intended.  I want a President who I can trust to say what he means and mean what he says whether or not I agree with his point of view.

We don't have that.  And that's what scares the bejeebers out of me over this Syria thing.


----------



## Redfish

Foxfyre said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least Reagan took responsibility.  In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised?  Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?
> 
> Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.
> 
> He's a putz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just don't get it.   As the first black president obama cannot be held responsible for anything------to do so would be racist.
> 
> We must all declare our love and devotion to chairman maobama or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far back as the 2008 campaign, that was my fear.  I wanted the first minority group President to be a conservative because then we would have a President who happened to be black or Hispanic or of Asian descent or whatever.  Nobody would have deferred to him because of race.  Look how the left treats ALL conservative black people now.
> 
> But a liberal black President?   Now we have a BLACK President and that means he is untouchable, uncriticizable, and must be adulated at all times.
> 
> I didn't want a BLACK President we would have to defer to because he was black.  I didn't have any problem with having a PRESIDENT who happened to have black skin.
> 
> But mostly I want a President with the character to own his words, his convictions, his ideals, his principles and who accepts the responsiblity of the position as it was constitutionally intended.  I want a President who I can trust to say what he means and mean what he says whether or not I agree with his point of view.
> 
> We don't have that.  And that's what scares the bejeebers out of me over this Syria thing.
Click to expand...


great post,  that says it all.


----------



## Foxfyre

paulitician said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is my worst fear.  Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used.  So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit.  What will we have accomplished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This War's gonna happen. The Powers-That-Be have already decided on it. Now it's just a matter of concocting a plausible story-line justification. Looks like a 'Chemical Attack' accusation will do the trick.
Click to expand...


And here we add another item to the list of possible conspiracies.

What if. . . .

What if. . . .Obama, or those who control him, see the handwriting on the wall?  If the economy continues to falter, they may lose their base and therefore their power.  So what is one way to generate economic activity?  Go to war that will require revving up the war machne.   All they need to justify it is to generate just a little bit of world opinion on their side. . . . 

Far fetched?  Perhaps.  But it makes as much sense as a lot of other stuff that has been added to this witch's brew. . .


----------



## Claudette

Foxfyre said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> very true,  and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least Reagan took responsibility.  In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised?  Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?
> 
> Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.
> 
> He's a putz.
Click to expand...


Putz works but I prefer Jackass.


----------



## paulitician

Foxfyre said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is my worst fear.  Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used.  So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit.  What will we have accomplished?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This War's gonna happen. The Powers-That-Be have already decided on it. Now it's just a matter of concocting a plausible story-line justification. Looks like a 'Chemical Attack' accusation will do the trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we add another item to the list of possible conspiracies.
> 
> What if. . . .
> 
> What if. . . .Obama, or those who control him, see the handwriting on the wall?  If the economy continues to falter, they may lose their base and therefore their power.  So what is one way to generate economic activity?  Go to war that will require revving up the war machne.   All they need to justify it is to generate just a little bit of world opinion on their side. . . .
> 
> Far fetched?  Perhaps.  But it makes as much sense as a lot of other stuff that has been added to this witch's brew. . .
Click to expand...


This War has been in the works for awhile. Their 'Chemical Weapons' meme is just way too convenient. Personally, i'm not buying it. And i don't think most Americans are either.


----------



## Contumacious

paulitician said:


> This War has been in the works for awhile.



Come on man,  Limited airstrikes with no ground troops *are not acts of war.*  I mean,  look at Pearl Harbor. 

.


----------



## U2Edge

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Click to expand...


Everywhere! This train left the station a long time ago!


----------



## U2Edge

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not nearly as many as 2 or 3 hundred US Tomahawk missiles would.
Click to expand...


300 missiles won't kill 10,000 people, but Assad's next Sarin gas attack could kill well beyond that.


----------



## Kondor3

It doesn't matter whether the Syrians have used chemical weapons or not.

We are not the World's Policeman and this is not our fight.


----------



## U2Edge

JWBooth said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> our missiles will kill civilians,  count on it.   probably thousands of them.   probably more than assad killed with CW.
> 
> this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when spread by incomplete destruction by Tomahawk missile?
> Or does collateral damage still not count?
Click to expand...


The missile strike is not targeting chemical stockpiles.


----------



## U2Edge

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
Click to expand...


Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.


----------



## Kondor3

Vox said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians have never had the culture of Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I meant and not what is behind the phrase of the XV century monk
> 
> It's a concept for the drive to be a superpower:
> http://www.ksk.edu.ee/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/KVUOA_Toimetised_12-Laats.pdf
Click to expand...


When Constantinople (the Second Rome) fell in 1453, it was hoped that the continuation of the Byzantine Imperial bloodline (through the female side) would result in a Muscovite (Duchy of Muscovy, including the city of Moskva [Moscow]) dynasty that could claim the Imperial Title and turn Muscovy into the Third Rome in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome


----------



## Contumacious

Kondor3 said:


> *It doesn't matter whether the Syrians have used chemical weapons or not.*



That is very very true.

The scam is to install a Sunni government which will allow Israel to attack Iran without fearing that Syria will attack Israel.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when spread by incomplete destruction by Tomahawk missile?
> Or does collateral damage still not count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The missile strike is not targeting chemical stockpiles.
Click to expand...


Like we know where it has all been moved too?

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not nearly as many as 2 or 3 hundred US Tomahawk missiles would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 missiles won't kill 10,000 people, but Assad's next Sarin gas attack could kill well beyond that.
Click to expand...


Who cares?. Survival of the fittest

-Geaux


----------



## R.C. Christian

U2Edge said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.
Click to expand...


Oh for fuck sake. Does it matter?


----------



## R.C. Christian

Contumacious said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter whether the Syrians have used chemical weapons or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is very very true.
> 
> The scam is to install a Sunni government which will allow Israel to attack Iran without fearing that Syria will attack Israel.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Exactly. Rep en route.


----------



## MisterBeale

georgephillip said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a New Middle East"
> General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> *Worth a few minutes to read:*
> 
> "'Hegemony is as old as Mankind' -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor.
> 
> "The term 'New Middle East' was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the 'Greater Middle East.'
> 
> "This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean.
> 
> "The term and conceptualization of the 'New Middle East,' was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a 'New Middle East' was being launched from Lebanon.
> 
> "This announcement was a confirmation of an *Anglo-American-Israeli 'military roadmap*' in the Middle East.
> 
> "This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating *an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.*
> 
> Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research
Click to expand...


This is an excellent article, one I suggest everybody bookmark and put in the political file in their bookmarks.  I have noticed that it has been updated since when I first read it back in 2009, it was first published in 2006.



> Global Research, January 27, 2013
> Global Research 18 November 2006



Excellent piece, great image too.  I love when they show hypothetical changes to the map.  When I was in sixth grade, I was fascinated to learn how the map of Europe used to look before WWI, and how it used to look before WWII.  That should be a clue to what kind of war should be necessary to get these kind of map changes folks.





Basically, it is a MUST read for everyone here on the US message boards if you want to have a clearer picture of what they are teaching at West Point and Bethesda, and discussing at that higher levels at the Pentagon.  There is definitely a split in the higher levels though.  Some of the higher leadership in the military believe we should be preparing for the inevitable showdown with China, they believe this strongly.  A defensive war is the only moral war.  Others, are definitely behind this new preemptive war, fascist movement.  This is not the only place I have found information on this long term strategy.

Here is another great source that backs up what is in that source.  It is always great to have more than one source to verify what is known.  Add that to what General Wesley Clark has revealed, and you have a pretty compelling case that the American nation is being used by the globalists as the prime mover and as the engineer of a global world order, whether we, the American citizens and sovereign tax payers like it or not.

The Social Big Bang of the 21st Century Turkey: From Atlantic to Eurasia
http://nsnbc.me/2013/07/01/the-social-big-bang-of-the-21st-century-turkey-from-atlantic-to-eurasia/



> The Second Israel = Free Kurdistan is an invariant of the Great Middle East Project. One of the invariants of the US policy concerning the Middle East is to turn Northern Iraq into a permanent base of its own, or equivalently into a second Israel. This target can be reached by founding a Free Kurdistan. The territory of the Kurdistan Regional Government is by itself not adequate for the sustainability of such a state. Sustainability requires expansion of the territory to the North into Turkey and an opening to the Mediterranean via a Kurdish Corridor in Northern Syria. A possible expansion to the East into Iran is also desirable. The competence and accumulation needed for founding and running such a state is owned by the PKK. This collection of statements depicts the framework within which the USA considers the Kurdish factor in the Middle East.


----------



## georgephillip

TooTall said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a &#8220;New Middle East&#8221;"
> General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> *Worth a few minutes to read:*
> 
> "'Hegemony is as old as Mankind&#8230;'* -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor.*
> 
> Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't ZB the advisor to Carter that oversaw the overthrow of the Shah in Iran so the Muslim Ayatollah could return to power?  As I recall, the Shah was mistreating some Russians that were making mischief in Iran, Carter didn't like that and wanted a religious leader to replace him.
> How did that work out?
Click to expand...

Carter and Brezinski were on watch when Ike's Iran handiwork of 1953 blew-back in their faces:

*"Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq[a] (Persian: &#1605;&#1615;&#1581;&#1614;&#1605;&#1614;&#1583; &#1605;&#1615;&#1589;&#1614;&#1583;&#1616;&#1602;*; IPA: [mohæm&#712;mæd(-e) mosæd&#712;de&#611;] ( listen); 16 June 1882 &#8211; 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA."

The Shah's Secret Police mistreated thousands during his US-supported reign and today's Mad Mullahs filled that power vacuum when Shah fled in 1979.

Some of Brezinski's policy prescriptions also appealed to the Gipper: 

"1979 saw two major strategically important events: the overthrow of U.S. ally the Shah of Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Iranian Revolution precipitated the Iran hostage crisis, which would last for the rest of Carter's presidency. 

"Brzezinski anticipated the Soviet invasion, and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China, he created a strategy to undermine the Soviet presence. 

"Using this atmosphere of insecurity, Brzezinski led the United States toward a new arms buildup and the development of the Rapid Deployment Forces &#8211; policies that are both more generally associated with Ronald Reagan now."

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many believe Ziggy did much more than anticipate the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In fact, he has proudly admitted to luring the Soviets into their own Vietnam, and he may have a great deal to do with what's happening in Syria (and beyond) today.*


----------



## Geaux4it

[/QUOTE]

The missile strike is not targeting chemical stockpiles.[/QUOTE]

Just saw a video clip of Obama today saying he went to Congress because he was not sure if the chemical attacks caused an immediate threat to the US. Hello- That is what 99% of the people on this board have been saying for days now.

-Geaux


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everywhere! This train left the station a long time ago!
Click to expand...

*So POST IT already unless it's CLASSIFIED for the next generation.*


----------



## paulitician

The missile strike is not targeting chemical stockpiles.[/QUOTE]

Just saw a video clip of Obama today saying he went to Congress because he was not sure if the chemical attacks caused an immediate threat to the US. Hello- That is what 99% of the people on this board have been saying for days now.

-Geaux[/QUOTE]

I'm sensing desperation now. And that's dangerous. Who knows what he'll concoct next? Stay tuned.


----------



## Bill Angel

> Just saw a video clip of Obama today saying he went to Congress because he was not sure if the chemical attacks caused an immediate threat to the US. Hello- That is what 99% of the people on this board have been saying for days now.
> 
> -Geaux



The present political conundrum does bring to mind a fictional scenario from the time of World War II. What if Nazi Germany had embarked on a programme of killing its political enemies with poison gas  BEFORE the USA had declared war on Nazi Germany and Japan, and the USA learned about it? Would the USA have attempted to carry out military activities meant to curtail such gassing by the Nazi forces, or would isolationist sentiment in the USA have stymied any attempts by the Roosevelt Administration to do so?


----------



## Spoonman

Breaking news. Obama announces deployment of a new secret weapon to Syria.  the EM-350 Urban assault Vehicle.


----------



## proudveteran06

If this had been Bush Senator Obama , Henry Reed, Barbara Boxer and all the other LIBERALS out there would be screaming their heads off !!!!!     What Hypocrites


----------



## Hoffstra

proudveteran06 said:


> If this had been Bush Senator Obama , Henry Reed, Barbara Boxer and all the other LIBERALS out there would be screaming their heads off !!!!!     What Hypocrites



that's not the issue.

we need to bring together the anti-war forces, who cares who they are and how they voted for the Iraq War.

this is about preventing a massive tragedy!!!


----------



## Geaux4it

Bill Angel said:


> Just saw a video clip of Obama today saying he went to Congress because he was not sure if the chemical attacks caused an immediate threat to the US. Hello- That is what 99% of the people on this board have been saying for days now.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The present political conundrum does bring to mind a fictional scenario from the time of World War II. What if Nazi Germany had embarked on a programme of killing its political enemies with poison gas  BEFORE the USA had declared war on Nazi Germany and Japan, and the USA learned about it? Would the USA have attempted to carry out military activities meant to curtail such gassing by the Nazi forces, or would isolationist sentiment in the USA have stymied any attempts by the Roosevelt Administration to do so?
Click to expand...


Interesting scenario.

Times were different then without question. The Jewish ties to America would have been a driving force. But let's be clear here- America was much more dominant militarily in WW1 and WW2 from a standpoint of sheer determination to win. Since then, not so much. Once past the shock and awe, things settle down. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan have not been our finest hour.

-Geaux


----------



## Hoffstra

Amazing how this poll seems to reflect the general public.


----------



## georgephillip

U2Edge said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.
Click to expand...

*"Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.

Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.

1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971..."*

Greatest Purveyor of Violence on this Planet?
It's not Assad or Russia.
It has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the globe since 2001 and it doesn't SIGN treaties that limit its ability to murder children with toxic substances.

10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About


----------



## proudveteran06

Hoffstra said:


> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this had been Bush Senator Obama , Henry Reed, Barbara Boxer and all the other LIBERALS out there would be screaming their heads off !!!!!     What Hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's not the issue.
> 
> we need to bring together the anti-war forces, who cares who they are and how they voted for the Iraq War.
> 
> this is about preventing a massive tragedy!!!
Click to expand...


How typical . I repeat; If this had been Bush you would have been SCREAMING !!  First the world screams that we act like their policeman , then they YELL for us, first thing. Let other Countries do it.


----------



## Camp

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
> 
> Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
> 
> 1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971..."*
> 
> Greatest Purveyor of Violence on this Planet?
> It's not Assad or Russia.
> It has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the globe since 2001 and it doesn't SIGN treaties that limit its ability to murder children with toxic substances.
> 
> 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About
Click to expand...


Great example of a fraudulent story. This is how extreme propaganda is used. Catch the readers eye with a headline. Open with the propaganda purpose. Follow up with bs. Most readers won't go beyond the headline. Most of the one's who do won't go beyond the first paragraph. But the seed is planted. The seed, is that America, and specifiicly the US military has used chemical warfare as a weapon of war to "murder children with toxic substances." Notice also that America gets blamed for "maimed, murdered, 'DISPLACED' and incarcerated millions of 'INNOCENT' Muslims ........since 2001.."  So anything and everything bad that has happened in the Muslim world since 9/11 is America's fault. We are directly responsible for causing muslim factions to be killing each other and escape the horror from country to country that are being and have been committed by other muslims. And if you believe this crap, you may conclude that America has been using chemical warfare to do some of it. Yes, it is our fault because we used white phosphorous to create a smoke screen or light up the night, a legal substance to be used in warfare, and that caused some shite muslim insurgent to blow up a market and kill 87 innocent sunni muslims. It's America's fault.


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
> 
> Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
> 
> 1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971..."*
> 
> Greatest Purveyor of Violence on this Planet?
> It's not Assad or Russia.
> It has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the globe since 2001 and it doesn't SIGN treaties that limit its ability to murder children with toxic substances.
> 
> 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About
Click to expand...

Mindless drivel by the Hamas Publicity Hound.


----------



## paulitician

proudveteran06 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this had been Bush Senator Obama , Henry Reed, Barbara Boxer and all the other LIBERALS out there would be screaming their heads off !!!!!     What Hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's not the issue.
> 
> we need to bring together the anti-war forces, who cares who they are and how they voted for the Iraq War.
> 
> this is about preventing a massive tragedy!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How typical . I repeat; If this had been Bush you would have been SCREAMING !!  First the world screams that we act like their policeman , then they YELL for us, first thing. Let other Countries do it.
Click to expand...


Being the World's Referee/Policeman is a Win/Win for the World. But it's a sad Lose/Lose for us. They complain about our 'Evil Imperialist interference' while at the same time demanding we get involved with Nations' internal conflicts. Some Nations, even our Allies, just love Monday Morning Quarterbacking us. It's all just a matter of convenience for them. Lets end this sad Catch 22 Foreign Policy. Let other Nations assume the role of World's Referee/Policeman. We've been there done that. It's time for change.


----------



## Kondor3

BTW...

As this Congressional vote gets closer, and as it becomes clear that we DO intend to strike, pending the results of that vote...

If... *IF*... we DO end-up striking, or otherwise 'go to war' in some fashion or another...

You will see a radical change in *my* demeanor on the subject of War with Syria...

I will cease protesting against it and advocating against our intervention...

I will continue to advocate against an expansion of our role, but...

I will begin supporting our War Effort, as that unfolds and evolves...

Some of you will see this as hypocritical...

Some of you will see this as a simpleton's naive and blind and servile patriotism...

Others, who have served in uniform yourselves, will better understand the sudden change...

It has to do with not wanting to provide '_Aid and Comfort_' to the Enemy, even if that is nothing more than contributing remarks on an Internet -based blogging site or two...

Some will view such a rationale as silly or unrealistic or making a mountain out of a molehill or ego-driven, thinking that such blogging means anything in the outside world...

Should we reach a tipping point (_as we did in 'Nam_) wherein we are losing a great many people - and the only way to stop our people from dying is to Go Public with opposition (again) in order to contribute a little weight to the collective attempting to get the government to cease hostilities...

Under such circumstances, I reserve for myself the right to flip-flop once again, and resume anti-War protests and advocacy and blogging, for whatever sliver of good or strengthening of the collective that that might do, but...

Barring such unlikely circumstances...

Once we commence war-operations, I will not engage in anti-War advocacy that contributes to the weight of the anti-War movement...

I will be switching camps and beginning to actively support war-operations in my own commentaries, as best I may...

Despite any brickbats which I may be obliged to endure, which attribute to such a shift...

Just wanted to put that on record against what almost certainly looks like a need to invoke it just over the horizon...

Again, stereotypically speaking, those who have served in uniform oftentimes understand that mentality better than those who have not...

_< puts-down cover-his-own-ass rule-book and mindset and gets back to anti-War advocacy while there is still time >_


----------



## Camp

paulitician said:


> Being the World's Referee/Policeman is a Win/Win for the World. But it's a sad Lose/Lose for us. They complain about our 'Evil Imperialist interference' while at the same time demanding we get involved with Nations' internal conflicts. Some Nations, even our Allies, just love Monday Morning Quarterbacking us. It's all just a matter of convenience for them. Lets end this sad Catch 22 Foreign Policy. Let other Nations assume the role of World's Referee/Policeman. We've been there done that. It's time for change.



This country made the decision to be the worlds referee/policeman after WWII because we didn't want to get dragged into wars started out of control countries. We have economic interest all over the world. The isolationist policies of of the libertarians like Ron Paul would leave our economy and security at the mercy of rogue dictators, political coups in little foriegn countries in Africa, South America and Asia. It presumes that niether Russia or China would take up that mantal world referee/policeman. Amature, immature poorly thought out consequences is the definition of libertarian ideology. Same can be said about Tea Party. You guys are like interbred cousins.


----------



## Camp

Kondor3 said:


> BTW...
> 
> As this Congressional vote gets closer, and as it becomes clear that we DO intend to strike, pending the results of that vote...
> 
> If... *IF*... we DO end-up striking, or otherwise 'go to war' in some fashion or another...
> 
> You will see a radical change in *my* demeanor on the subject of War with Syria...
> 
> I will cease protesting against it and advocating against our intervention...
> 
> I will continue to advocate against an expansion of our role, but...
> 
> I will begin supporting our War Effort, as that unfolds and evolves...
> 
> Some of you will see this as hypocritical...
> 
> Some of you will see this as a simpleton's naive and blind and servile patriotism...
> 
> Others, who have served in uniform yourselves, will better understand the sudden change...
> 
> It has to do with not wanting to provide '_Aid and Comfort_' to the Enemy, even if that is nothing more than contributing remarks on an Internet -based blogging site or two...
> 
> Some will view such a rationale as silly or unrealistic or making a mountain out of a molehill or ego-driven, thinking that such blogging means anything in the outside world...
> 
> Should we reach a tipping point (_as we did in 'Nam_) wherein we are losing a great many people - and the only way to stop our people from dying is to Go Public with opposition (again) in order to contribute a little weight to the collective attempting to get the government to cease hostilities...
> 
> Under such circumstances, I reserve for myself the right to flip-flop once again, and resume anti-War protests and advocacy and blogging, for whatever sliver of good or strengthening of the collective that that might do, but...
> 
> Barring such unlikely circumstances...
> 
> Once we commence war-operations, I will not engage in anti-War advocacy that contributes to the weight of the anti-War movement...
> 
> I will be switching camps and beginning to actively support war-operations in my own commentaries, as best I may...
> 
> Despite any brickbats which I may be obliged to endure, which attribute to such a shift...
> 
> Just wanted to put that on record against what almost certainly looks like a need to invoke it just over the horizon...
> 
> Again, stereotypically speaking, those who have served in uniform oftentimes understand that mentality better than those who have not...
> 
> _< puts-down cover-his-own-ass rule-book and mindset and gets back to anti-War advocacy while there is still time >_



Don't worry. You can go to an anti-war demonstration wearing a prominent "Jane Fonda-AMERICAN TRAITOR BITCH" patch next to your "SUPPORT OUR VETS" patch and your American flag patch. The good demonstration have good music and lots of pretty girls. Usually there is a small counter demonstration, so if you get bored you can go hang out with those guys. Sometimes it just depends on who is closest to the beer vendor or bar. It's great when people give you dirty looks about your patchs.


----------



## Foxfyre

War is one of the giant indecencies of humankind.  Yet the absence of war is not necessarily peace.  Had there been no WWII, how many countries would Hitler have annexed to Germany?  He exterminated more than six million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, freemasons, and others before he was stopped.  If he had not been stopped, how many more would he have starved, ravaged, brutalized, and killed?

If Saddam Hussein had not been stopped from taking over the Kuwait and Saudi oil fields, how much further would he have gone?  He commanded the world's fourth largest, well-equipped army at that time.  And if he was allowed to control a huge percentage of the world's oil reserves, how would that have affected the free world?  How much additional risk would there have been from an ambitious and ruthless dictator?

But then we look at an ambitious Soviet Union that murdered 20 million of their own people, but was brought down economically instead of militarily.  But how much further would it had have expanded if it had not been for the USA and others in the free world who were ready to go to war?

But throughout the world, ambitious dictators make war upon their own people, and some of their own people seek to topple the dictator and become dictators themselves.

Is Syria more like Germany and the USSR?   Or more like all those other countries that war within their own borders?

And how much responsibility does the free world have for that?


----------



## paulitician

Camp said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the World's Referee/Policeman is a Win/Win for the World. But it's a sad Lose/Lose for us. They complain about our 'Evil Imperialist interference' while at the same time demanding we get involved with Nations' internal conflicts. Some Nations, even our Allies, just love Monday Morning Quarterbacking us. It's all just a matter of convenience for them. Lets end this sad Catch 22 Foreign Policy. Let other Nations assume the role of World's Referee/Policeman. We've been there done that. It's time for change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country made the decision to be the worlds referee/policeman after WWII because we didn't want to get dragged into wars started out of control countries. We have economic interest all over the world. The isolationist policies of of the libertarians like Ron Paul would leave our economy and security at the mercy of rogue dictators, political coups in little foriegn countries in Africa, South America and Asia. It presumes that niether Russia or China would take up that mantal world referee/policeman. Amature, immature poorly thought out consequences is the definition of libertarian ideology. Same can be said about Tea Party. You guys are like interbred cousins.
Click to expand...


Ron Paul is not an Isolationist. That's just a boring predictable meme, regurgitated by Warmongering Globalists. He's all for free & open Global Trade. Read up a bit more on the man. Don't believe the Socialist/Progressive & Neocon hype. They lie.


----------



## toastman

What are the chances that Obama reads this thread?


----------



## Foxfyre

toastman said:


> What are the chances that Obama reads this thread?



Slim to none.  But those who control him are reading in on public opinion across the internet so that they can tailor his speeches accordingly.  You can be sure that some in the political world are reading in at USMB.  Those and millions of others like us here do have power to change minds and affect politcal decisions.


----------



## Kondor3

Camp said:


> "..._Don't worry. You can go to an anti-war demonstration wearing a prominent 'Jane Fonda-AMERICAN TRAITOR BITCH' patch next to your 'SUPPORT OUR VETS' patch and your American flag patch_..."


And thus it begins...

Bringing out the nastiest in the worst amongst us... and that before the shooting even starts (while I'm still on the same side) and I'm obliged to change my tune for the duration... just the hint or prospect of making the switch is damnable and anathema to some...

Been there... done that... got the cookie and the souvenir button... accosted by far better and more talented detractors and denigrators under such circumstances, and survived just fine within various blogging communities...

As I said earlier... someone who has worn the uniform and served is more likely to understand a switch to some kind of '_cease criticizing and support our troops and the mission for the duration_' stance...

Having a history in-uniform is no guarantee of agreeing with such a switch or such a stance (_and we may even see an exception or two around here, for all I know_) but it greatly increases the likelihood that such a stance or such a switch will be understood for what it is...

Suppressing active advocacy for one's own foreign policy preferences or perspective until our kids are out of harms' way again, once they're committed.

But we're not there yet, and we may yet be surprised, and end-up not undertaking this really bad idea of attacking Syria, so... here's hoping...


----------



## RandallFlagg

paulitician said:


> The missile strike is not targeting chemical stockpiles.



Just saw a video clip of Obama today saying he went to Congress because he was not sure if the chemical attacks caused an immediate threat to the US. Hello- That is what 99% of the people on this board have been saying for days now.

-Geaux[/QUOTE]

*



			I'm sensing desperation now. And that's dangerous. Who knows what he'll concoct next? Stay tuned.
		
Click to expand...

*
There's something that is terribly important to understand as it relates to Barry. 

Barry is a MASTER at turning one group against another, in other words, devisiness. No one has ever doubted that. Look at the condition of race relations right now in America.

When it comes to foreign relations, however, Barry is absolutely and totally lost. We have a president who is clueless. I honestly don't believe that he has a clue as to how the "real" world operates. Barry honestly thought that the world had embraced him as "the one". 

Barry is not accustomed to being laughed at by those whom he thought "adored" him and he is pouting. Unfortunately, his passive/aggressiveness might very well get the United States into serious trouble.

Look closely. We are seeing the end of a presidency right before our very eyes.


----------



## georgephillip

Camp said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> *"Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
> 
> Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
> 
> 1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971..."*
> 
> Greatest Purveyor of Violence on this Planet?
> It's not Assad or Russia.
> It has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the globe since 2001 and it doesn't SIGN treaties that limit its ability to murder children with toxic substances.
> 
> 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great example of a fraudulent story. This is how extreme propaganda is used. Catch the readers eye with a headline. Open with the propaganda purpose. Follow up with bs. Most readers won't go beyond the headline. Most of the one's who do won't go beyond the first paragraph. But the seed is planted. The seed, is that America, and specifiicly the US military has used chemical warfare as a weapon of war to "murder children with toxic substances." Notice also that America gets blamed for "maimed, murdered, 'DISPLACED' and incarcerated millions of 'INNOCENT' Muslims ........since 2001.."  So anything and everything bad that has happened in the Muslim world since 9/11 is America's fault. We are directly responsible for causing muslim factions to be killing each other and escape the horror from country to country that are being and have been committed by other muslims. And if you believe this crap, you may conclude that America has been using chemical warfare to do some of it. Yes, it is our fault because we used white phosphorous to create a smoke screen or light up the night, a legal substance to be used in warfare, and that caused some shite muslim insurgent to blow up a market and kill 87 innocent sunni muslims. It's America's fault.
Click to expand...

"In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. 

"First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. 

"Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. 

"At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, 'Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre,' including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death."

10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Napalm and White Phosphorous are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and are not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty of 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> *"Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
> 
> Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
> 
> 1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971..."*
> 
> Greatest Purveyor of Violence on this Planet?
> It's not Assad or Russia.
> It has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the globe since 2001 and it doesn't SIGN treaties that limit its ability to murder children with toxic substances.
> 
> 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindless drivel by the Hamas Publicity Hound.
Click to expand...

How's the Agent Orange tasting now, Killer?


----------



## Foxfyre

Not only that, but our fearless leader seems to have no moral center of any kind, holds no convictions of any kind other than he doesn't like America very much, is incapable of being straight forward and honest about anything, and acts on nothing unless he is convinced it will increase his messiah mystique:

August 30--Syria is a threat to our national interests
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU0C2FDn3xU]President Barack Obama Syria FULL Statement. 8/30/2013 - YouTube[/ame]

Sept 6--Complete flip flop



> I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate, because right now Im working to get as much support as possible out of Congress.
> 
> But Ill repeat something that I said in Sweden when I was asked a similar question. I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism. I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assads use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States. In that situation, obviously, I dont worry about Congress; we do what we have to do to keep the American people safe.
> 
> I could not say that it was immediately directly going to have an impact on our allies. Again, in those situations, I would act right away. This wasnt even a situation like Libya, where, you know, youve got troops rolling towards Benghazi and you have a concern about time, in terms of saving somebody right away.
> Obama advisor: He won?t attack Syria if Congress votes no « Hot Air



Personal note:   Of course when there was a direct threat on Benghazi that killed four of our embassy personnel and wounded dozens of others . . . .no action on our part whatsoever.

The man is a putz


----------



## Wyld Kard

paulitician said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, how convenient. Assad has become the Chemical Weapons Boogeyman they desperately wanted him to be. Way too convenient if you ask me. I'm not buying our Government's story on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is way too convient.  Obama's handlers need a reason to reason to "justify" actions that would otherwise be widely  opposed.
> 
> Without the lie about "chemical weapons" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - a military strike on Syria.
> 
> Just like when GWB was prez, without the lie about "weapons of mass destruction" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - an invasion of Iraq.
> 
> Basically it's the same routine, different location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, ole Assad sure did play along perfectly huh? Their story falls apart under closer scrutiny.
Click to expand...


You're right about that!


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
> 
> Here is a list of 10 chemical weapons attacks carried out by the U.S. government or its allies against civilians.
> 
> 1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971..."*
> 
> Greatest Purveyor of Violence on this Planet?
> It's not Assad or Russia.
> It has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the globe since 2001 and it doesn't SIGN treaties that limit its ability to murder children with toxic substances.
> 
> 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About
> 
> 
> 
> Mindless drivel by the Hamas Publicity Hound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How's the Agent Orange tasting now, Killer?
Click to expand...

Why, Georgie Boy (you little wimp who got out of basic training after only ten days because of faking a bad back) don't you tell us how many of your homeboys killed innocent people in Los Angeles this week?  I read in one of the Los Angeles papers today that one has been sentenced for killing some Hispanics.  It must be a war zone, but Georgie Boy stays safe in his little subsidized apartment.  This way Georgie boy is out of harm's way while he obsesses over the Vietnam War and his hatred of America.  I guess his Commie counterparts in Russia can't find him a subsidized apartment plus he is too old to be able to master the Russian language.  Hmm, wonder if they have  Meals on Wheels in Russia to feed the Seniors who don't get out..


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindless drivel by the Hamas Publicity Hound.
> 
> 
> 
> How's the Agent Orange tasting now, Killer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, Georgie Boy (you little wimp who got out of basic training after only ten days because of faking a bad back) don't you tell us how many of your homeboys killed innocent people in Los Angeles this week?  I read in one of the Los Angeles papers today that one has been sentenced for killing some Hispanics.  It must be a war zone, but Georgie Boy stays safe in his little subsidized apartment.  This way Georgie boy is out of harm's way while he obsesses over the Vietnam War and his hatred of America.  I guess his Commie counterparts in Russia can't find him a subsidized apartment plus he is too old to be able to master the Russian language.  Hmm, wonder if they have  Meals on Wheels in Russia to feed the Seniors who don't get out..
Click to expand...

*Hossie, the neurotic Rainbow Warrior, has never told us how many women and kids he helped poison. 

Maybe it's too painful for the pussy?*

"Arthur Galston's research into the chemical triiodobenzoic acid led to the development of Agent Orange, which gets its name from the orange, striped barrels in which it was stored. Agent Orange was one of a number of 'Rainbow Herbicides' in use by the U.S. Army. The other 'Rainbow Herbicides' included Agents White, Blue, Green, Pink and Purple. 

"According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. military herbicide program was in place between 1962 and 1971 with spraying occurring in all four military zones between January 1965 and April 1970. *By the VA's estimation, more than 19 million gallons of various herbicide combinations were used

*Agent Orange & Its Neurological Symptoms | LIVESTRONG.COM

*Ever wonder if hell has a special place for pussies who poison the unborn?*


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> "..._Hossie, the neurotic Rainbow Warrior, has never told us how many women and kids he helped poison. Maybe it's too painful for the pussy?_..."


If Hossfly *IS* a Vietnam War veteran, then, the next question is...

Are *YOU* a veteran of the US Armed Forces?



> "..._Ever wonder if hell has a special place for pussies who poison the unborn?_"



Not really, but, if there *IS*, it's probably right next to the spot picked-out for those who stick a surgical instrument into the brains of an unborn, and give 'em a stir, wot?


----------



## Hoffstra

Hossfly said:


> Why, Georgie Boy (you little wimp who got out of basic training after only ten days because of faking a bad back) don't you tell us how many of your homeboys killed innocent people in Los Angeles this week?  I read in one of the Los Angeles papers today that one has been sentenced for killing some Hispanics.  It must be a war zone, but Georgie Boy stays safe in his little subsidized apartment.  This way Georgie boy is out of harm's way while he obsesses over the Vietnam War and his hatred of America.  I guess his Commie counterparts in Russia can't find him a subsidized apartment plus he is too old to be able to master the Russian language.  Hmm, wonder if they have  Meals on Wheels in Russia to feed the Seniors who don't get out..



did you kill any innocent civilians in Vietnam?


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's the Agent Orange tasting now, Killer?
> 
> 
> 
> Why, Georgie Boy (you little wimp who got out of basic training after only ten days because of faking a bad back) don't you tell us how many of your homeboys killed innocent people in Los Angeles this week?  I read in one of the Los Angeles papers today that one has been sentenced for killing some Hispanics.  It must be a war zone, but Georgie Boy stays safe in his little subsidized apartment.  This way Georgie boy is out of harm's way while he obsesses over the Vietnam War and his hatred of America.  I guess his Commie counterparts in Russia can't find him a subsidized apartment plus he is too old to be able to master the Russian language.  Hmm, wonder if they have  Meals on Wheels in Russia to feed the Seniors who don't get out..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hossie, the neurotic Rainbow Warrior, has never told us how many women and kids he helped poison.
> 
> Maybe it's too painful for the pussy?*
> 
> "Arthur Galston's research into the chemical triiodobenzoic acid led to the development of Agent Orange, which gets its name from the orange, striped barrels in which it was stored. Agent Orange was one of a number of 'Rainbow Herbicides' in use by the U.S. Army. The other 'Rainbow Herbicides' included Agents White, Blue, Green, Pink and Purple.
> 
> "According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. military herbicide program was in place between 1962 and 1971 with spraying occurring in all four military zones between January 1965 and April 1970. *By the VA's estimation, more than 19 million gallons of various herbicide combinations were used
> 
> *Agent Orange & Its Neurological Symptoms | LIVESTRONG.COM
> 
> *Ever wonder if hell has a special place for pussies who poison the unborn?*
Click to expand...

Looks like Georgie Boy is afraid to leave his subsidized apartment because it is like a war zone out there.  Georgie Boy, the Wimp, will never admit what a pussy he is, but it makes him feel good to call others what he actually is.  Meanwhile, his homeboys have done plenty of raping and murdering, and this Wimp sits in his subsidized apartment all day long because he is afraid to step outside.  I wonder if there is a Hell for people like you, Georgie Boy, who hate their country but don't mind taking the freebies like you do.  So sit in your tiny little apartment, Georgie Boy.  Apparently you have no other life than obsessing over the country you hate.  And, Georgie Boy, I don't think you are really fooling most of the viewers that you actually care about humanity.  You are just using people as you pawns against those whom you feel held you back in life when it was really your own lack of initiative which made you a loser.


----------



## Hossfly

Hoffstra said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why, Georgie Boy (you little wimp who got out of basic training after only ten days because of faking a bad back) don't you tell us how many of your homeboys killed innocent people in Los Angeles this week?  I read in one of the Los Angeles papers today that one has been sentenced for killing some Hispanics.  It must be a war zone, but Georgie Boy stays safe in his little subsidized apartment.  This way Georgie boy is out of harm's way while he obsesses over the Vietnam War and his hatred of America.  I guess his Commie counterparts in Russia can't find him a subsidized apartment plus he is too old to be able to master the Russian language.  Hmm, wonder if they have  Meals on Wheels in Russia to feed the Seniors who don't get out..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you kill any innocent civilians in Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Did you kill any innocent people on Long Island, Miss Troll Hoffstra?  One never knows.  Meanwhile, I figure that many of the viewers realize by now that Georgie Boy gets a cheap thrill when it calls one of the U.S. military a "killder" since he doesn't seem to get many thrills in his life except those he gets on forums.  How many times has that wimp said "killer:  to turn himself on?  Hmm, I wonder if Miss Hoffstra would have answered the call to fight the Nazis if she had been alive at that time of World War II or would she have joined them instead because she possibly hates the Jews as much as Georgie Boy.  I can see Ilsa Koch, the Bitch of Buckenwald" being buddy buddy with Miss Hoffstra, maybe the bestest of friends.


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Hossie, the neurotic Rainbow Warrior, has never told us how many women and kids he helped poison. Maybe it's too painful for the pussy?_..."
> 
> 
> 
> If Hossfly *IS* a Vietnam War veteran, then, the next question is...
> 
> Are *YOU* a veteran of the US Armed Forces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Ever wonder if hell has a special place for pussies who poison the unborn?_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, but, if there *IS*, it's probably right next to the spot picked-out for those who stick a surgical instrument into the brains of an unborn, and give 'em a stir, wot?
Click to expand...

You bet, wot.
I'm not a veteran or an abortionist. 
You?


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Hossie, the neurotic Rainbow Warrior, has never told us how many women and kids he helped poison. Maybe it's too painful for the pussy?_..."
> 
> 
> 
> If Hossfly *IS* a Vietnam War veteran, then, the next question is...
> 
> Are *YOU* a veteran of the US Armed Forces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Ever wonder if hell has a special place for pussies who poison the unborn?_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, but, if there *IS*, it's probably right next to the spot picked-out for those who stick a surgical instrument into the brains of an unborn, and give 'em a stir, wot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bet, wot.
> I'm not a veteran or an abortionist.
> You?
Click to expand...

I am a veteran.

When you have served in the US Armed Forces in wartime, and been out in the shit with your ass hanging in the breeze, then, and only then, will you have the right to call a War Veteran (Hoss) a pussy.

Until you earn that right through service to your country and your countrymen, I suggest a wee bit more courtesy towards a colleague who appears to have better credentials in the Manhood department than you are likely to be able to muster.


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Hossie, the neurotic Rainbow Warrior, has never told us how many women and kids he helped poison. Maybe it's too painful for the pussy?_..."
> 
> 
> 
> If Hossfly *IS* a Vietnam War veteran, then, the next question is...
> 
> Are *YOU* a veteran of the US Armed Forces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Ever wonder if hell has a special place for pussies who poison the unborn?_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, but, if there *IS*, it's probably right next to the spot picked-out for those who stick a surgical instrument into the brains of an unborn, and give 'em a stir, wot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bet, wot.
> I'm not a veteran or an abortionist.
> You?
Click to expand...

Why not be honest with the viewers, Georgie Boy, and admit that the reason you are not a veteran is because, as you yourself claimed, you got homesick and faked a bad back after only ten days of basic training with the Air Force.  Even children can last two entire weeks in a summer camp.  As for the abortionist, how are we to know what you did on the side?  Many of Georgie Boy's homeboys hung in there and were able to work at the Los Angeles Air Force Base in such jobs as computer programmers in our country's space program.  When they got out, they used their G.I. Bill to attend college.  They weren't slackers like Georgie Boy so didn't have to blame others like Georgie Boy does.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Well it seems this thread has devolved into a dick swing contest between vets that wrap themselves in the flag and those who are a bit more pragmatic. Not my fight but I think you guys have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Hossfly *IS* a Vietnam War veteran, then, the next question is...
> 
> Are *YOU* a veteran of the US Armed Forces?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, but, if there *IS*, it's probably right next to the spot picked-out for those who stick a surgical instrument into the brains of an unborn, and give 'em a stir, wot?
> 
> 
> 
> You bet, wot.
> I'm not a veteran or an abortionist.
> You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a veteran.
> 
> When you have served in the US Armed Forces in wartime, and been out in the shit with your ass hanging in the breeze, then, and only then, will you have the right to call a War Veteran (Hoss) a pussy.
> 
> Until you earn that right through service to your country and your countrymen, I suggest a wee bit more courtesy towards a colleague who appears to have better credentials in the Manhood department than you are likely to be able to muster.
Click to expand...

Why do you think those who take money to maim, murder, rape, and displace millions of civilians from Korea to Khandahar have any credentials in the "Manhood" department? Have you ever heard the expression "gun pussy?"


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bet, wot.
> I'm not a veteran or an abortionist.
> You?
> 
> 
> 
> I am a veteran.
> 
> When you have served in the US Armed Forces in wartime, and been out in the shit with your ass hanging in the breeze, then, and only then, will you have the right to call a War Veteran (Hoss) a pussy.
> 
> Until you earn that right through service to your country and your countrymen, I suggest a wee bit more courtesy towards a colleague who appears to have better credentials in the Manhood department than you are likely to be able to muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think those who take money to maim, murder, rape, and displace millions of civilians from Korea to Khandahar have any credentials in the "Manhood" department? Have you ever heard the expression "gun pussy?"
Click to expand...

No. Have you heard the expression "Eight ball"?


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> "..._Why do you think those who take money_..."


If you have to ask the question, it seems unlikely that you would understand the answer, and recognize its validity and truth.

I think I'll take a pass on this 'calling a war-vet a pussy' business from here-on-out, so as avoid hijacking the thread to an even greater degree...


----------



## Kondor3

R.C. Christian said:


> _Well it seems this thread has devolved into a dick swing contest between vets that wrap themselves in the flag and those who are a bit more pragmatic. Not my fight but I think you guys have bigger fish to fry_.



Call it an instinctive circling of wagons amongst brothers and sisters when somebody (who hasn't earned the right) tries to call out one of our own regarding courage or manhood, RC...

Had the 'charge' not been leveled first, the 'reaction' would not have manifested in response...

--------------------

"_...And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day..._"

Henry V, Act IV, Scene III

--------------------

We take care of our own... even to the discomfort of those on the outside, looking in...

--------------------

Veterans' rant over...

My fault...

Feel free to continue with the mainstream purpose of the thread at your discretion...


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> "...No. Have you heard the expression "*Eight ball*"?



*Medical Profile? (psych?)*... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







--------------------

Imaginary Referee: "Bad, bad Kondor... you said the veteran's rant was over!"

Me: "OK, OK, OK... ya got me... alright already, fer Crissakes... I'm done now... fer real..."


----------



## georgephillip

R.C. Christian said:


> Well it seems this thread has devolved into a dick swing contest between vets that wrap themselves in the flag and those who are a bit more pragmatic. Not my fight but I think you guys have bigger fish to fry.


Old habits (mistakes) die hard.


----------



## Camp

georgephillip said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it seems this thread has devolved into a dick swing contest between vets that wrap themselves in the flag and those who are a bit more pragmatic. Not my fight but I think you guys have bigger fish to fry.
> 
> 
> 
> Old habits (mistakes) die hard.
Click to expand...


Admitting that you have been a habitual anti-American asshole your whole life is not a valid reason to still be one.


----------



## georgephillip

Camp said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it seems this thread has devolved into a dick swing contest between vets that wrap themselves in the flag and those who are a bit more pragmatic. Not my fight but I think you guys have bigger fish to fry.
> 
> 
> 
> Old habits (mistakes) die hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admitting that you have been a habitual anti-American asshole your whole life is not a valid reason to still be one.
Click to expand...

"Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis?
By Larry Johnson on September 8, 2013 at 12:30 AM in Current Affairs
Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this.

*Are you ready, Slave?*

Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old habits (mistakes) die hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that you have been a habitual anti-American asshole your whole life is not a valid reason to still be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis?
> By Larry Johnson on September 8, 2013 at 12:30 AM in Current Affairs
> Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this.
> 
> *Are you ready, Slave?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
Click to expand...

It's amusing how Georgie Boy entertains himself with these forums since there is nothing else going on in his life, but one would think that he would at least make the effort to send Letters to the Editors of his local newspapers since more people would see his stuff than on these forums.  Here is one from the Los Angeles Daily News which you could answer Georgie Boy.  You can call this letter writer a Slave to Obama and then see what responses you get.  In fact, you can keep an eye out for all the Letters to the Editors in all the newspapers of Los Angeles County and have a good time spending the day answering those you feel like and millions of citizens will see your letters.
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20130904/lets-not-forget-obama-took-out-osama-bin-laden-letters
Let&#8217;s not forget Obama took out Osama bin LadenRe &#8220;Nothing surprising about Obama&#8217;s indecisiveness&#8221; (Letters, Sept. 3):The anti-Obama letter writer who said there is &#8220;nothing surprising about Obama&#8217;s indecisiveness&#8221; regarding Syria, and dismissed the president as nothing more than a community organizer, conveniently forgets one important fact. It was Obama who made the tough decision to take out Osama bin Laden...


----------



## R.C. Christian

I must have missed some pages in this never ending thread Hossfly. Are you for war with Syria?


----------



## Hoffstra

R.C. Christian said:


> I must have missed some pages in this never ending thread Hossfly. Are you for war with Syria?



he supports the war on Syria because he thinks it will lead to war with Iran, and will allow Israel to justify never letting go of the Golan Heights.

He is all about Israel, all of the time.

its time we declared a "No-Fly Zone" here.


----------



## Desperado

This is getting more and more like the excuses we used to invade Iraq.
Now with Syria, it started as we have drawn a red line and the Assad Administration crossed that line by using gas on  their own people. 
Americans were not buying into this ploy for a reason to attack. No real proof that Assad was the guilty one.
Then the  Israeli Mossad provided proof positive that it was Assad and his henchman.  Again no positive proof, just their word on the matter.  Sound familiar? Again, Americans were not buying it, Something about fool me once......
Now we are being told that we have to punish Syria, to set a precedence for Iran and North Korea.
WTF, Some how you knew that Iran would be worked into the war propaganda, just a matter of time.


----------



## Hoffstra

174 NO

7 YES


wow, this war is very unpopular in the USA.

Too bad Congress doesn't give a shit what the American people think.

They only care about the big money $$$$$ (AIPAC).


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that you have been a habitual anti-American asshole your whole life is not a valid reason to still be one.
> 
> 
> 
> "Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis?
> By Larry Johnson on September 8, 2013 at 12:30 AM in Current Affairs
> Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this.
> 
> *Are you ready, Slave?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amusing how Georgie Boy entertains himself with these forums since there is nothing else going on in his life, but one would think that he would at least make the effort to send Letters to the Editors of his local newspapers since more people would see his stuff than on these forums.  Here is one from the Los Angeles Daily News which you could answer Georgie Boy.  You can call this letter writer a Slave to Obama and then see what responses you get.  In fact, you can keep an eye out for all the Letters to the Editors in all the newspapers of Los Angeles County and have a good time spending the day answering those you feel like and millions of citizens will see your letters.
> Let&#x2019;s not forget Obama took out Osama bin Laden: Letters
> Lets not forget Obama took out Osama bin LadenRe Nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness (Letters, Sept. 3):The anti-Obama letter writer who said there is nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness regarding Syria, and dismissed the president as nothing more than a community organizer, conveniently forgets one important fact. It was Obama who made the tough decision to take out Osama bin Laden...
Click to expand...

"Watching the propaganda effort underway in the West, especially the United States, it is Deja vu all over again. 

"Following the Bush blueprint of repeating the mantra of Saddam, WMDs and 9-11 to justify going to war against Iraq, the Obama playbook is using the specter of dead children, WMDS in the hands of terrorists and Iran run amuck to try to scare the American public into doing the same stupid thing.

The Saudis and the Netanyahu crowd are pushing this desperate line and the Obama Administration is going along with the charade. 

"Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present, Syrias military retains tight control over the stockpiles of Chemical weapons. 

"The rebels fighting the Syria Government have been kept at bay, so far. And Obamas solution? Degrade the Syrian military, which means a higher likelihood that those chemical weapons depots would fall into the hands of the Syria Islamic jihadists eager to oust Bashir Assad and create their own version Sharia rule. 

"*Yeah, thats a great plan.*"

Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET


----------



## Camp

[QUOTE=georgephillip;7802662 

"Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present, Syrias military retains tight control over the stockpiles of Chemical weapons.

If Syria retains control of it's WMD's, where did the chemical agents used in the attack come from. Are you saying there was no attack? Are you saying if there was an attack, only the government forces had access to the agents and therefore are responsible? How is it that you have this knowledge of "tight control" and what does it mean? Are you suggesting that allegations that these weapons were used by rogue government forces are incorrect and impossible?


----------



## georgephillip

Desperado said:


> This is getting more and more like the excuses we used to invade Iraq.
> Now with Syria, it started as we have drawn a red line and the Assad Administration crossed that line by using gas on  their own people.
> Americans were not buying into this ploy for a reason to attack. No real proof that Assad was the guilty one.
> Then the  Israeli Mossad provided proof positive that it was Assad and his henchman.  Again no positive proof, just their word on the matter.  Sound familiar? Again, Americans were not buying it, Something about fool me once......
> Now we are being told that we have to punish Syria, to set a precedence for Iran and North Korea.
> WTF, Some how you knew that Iran would be worked into the war propaganda, just a matter of time.


*We should never forget where Syria and Iraq came from, IMHO*

"The SykesPicot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

"The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the SykesPicot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, 'the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.'

*Powerful police states had to be implemented a hundred years ago in order to establish and maintain western-colonial enterprises like Syria, Iraq, and even in Israel prior to 1948 (at least). Today the powers-that-be apparently have decided to break up states like Iraq and Syria, possibly to carve out a "Free Kurdistan" (garrisoned by NATO) to protect 21st Century oil pipeline routes.*

Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis?
> By Larry Johnson on September 8, 2013 at 12:30 AM in Current Affairs
> Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this.
> 
> *Are you ready, Slave?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> 
> 
> It's amusing how Georgie Boy entertains himself with these forums since there is nothing else going on in his life, but one would think that he would at least make the effort to send Letters to the Editors of his local newspapers since more people would see his stuff than on these forums.  Here is one from the Los Angeles Daily News which you could answer Georgie Boy.  You can call this letter writer a Slave to Obama and then see what responses you get.  In fact, you can keep an eye out for all the Letters to the Editors in all the newspapers of Los Angeles County and have a good time spending the day answering those you feel like and millions of citizens will see your letters.
> Let&#x2019;s not forget Obama took out Osama bin Laden: Letters
> Lets not forget Obama took out Osama bin LadenRe Nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness (Letters, Sept. 3):The anti-Obama letter writer who said there is nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness regarding Syria, and dismissed the president as nothing more than a community organizer, conveniently forgets one important fact. It was Obama who made the tough decision to take out Osama bin Laden...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Watching the propaganda effort underway in the West, especially the United States, it is Deja vu all over again.
> 
> "Following the Bush blueprint of repeating the mantra of Saddam, WMDs and 9-11 to justify going to war against Iraq, the Obama playbook is using the specter of dead children, WMDS in the hands of terrorists and Iran run amuck to try to scare the American public into doing the same stupid thing.
> 
> The Saudis and the Netanyahu crowd are pushing this desperate line and the Obama Administration is going along with the charade.
> 
> "Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present, Syrias military retains tight control over the stockpiles of Chemical weapons.
> 
> "The rebels fighting the Syria Government have been kept at bay, so far. And Obamas solution? Degrade the Syrian military, which means a higher likelihood that those chemical weapons depots would fall into the hands of the Syria Islamic jihadists eager to oust Bashir Assad and create their own version Sharia rule.
> 
> "*Yeah, thats a great plan.*"
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
Click to expand...


Let me share my experience with you about writing letters to Bibi. He will not answer you, you will get a form letter stating his office is too busy to respond.


----------



## georgephillip

Camp said:


> georgephillip;7802662
> 
> "Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Some are suggesting more than one side in the Syrian conflict has access to chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.*
> 
> Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research
> 
> "An Israeli-Saudi-US conspiracy?
> 
> "The US-supported anti-government forces fighting inside Syria are the ones that have a track record of using chemical weapons. Yet, Obama and company have said nothing."
> 
> "Despite the anti-government forces accusations that the Syrian military launched a chemical weapon attack on Homs at Christmas in December 2012, CNN reported that the US military was training anti-government fighters with the securing and handling of chemical weapons. Under the name of the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion, the insurgents themselves even threatened to use nerve gas and released a video where they killed rabbits as a demonstration of what they planned on doing in Syria."
> 
> *I don't think Obama knows who was responsible for the latest atrocity in Syria, but I seriously doubt killing more Syrians will help; there is no military solution in Syria, IMHO.*
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

georgephillip said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip;7802662
> 
> "Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Some are suggesting more than one side in the Syrian conflict has access to chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.*
> 
> Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research
> 
> "An Israeli-Saudi-US conspiracy?
> 
> "The US-supported anti-government forces fighting inside Syria are the ones that have a track record of using chemical weapons. Yet, Obama and company have said nothing."
> 
> "Despite the anti-government forces accusations that the Syrian military launched a chemical weapon attack on Homs at Christmas in December 2012, CNN reported that the US military was training anti-government fighters with the securing and handling of chemical weapons. Under the name of the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion, the insurgents themselves even threatened to use nerve gas and released a video where they killed rabbits as a demonstration of what they planned on doing in Syria."
> 
> *I don't think Obama knows who was responsible for the latest atrocity in Syria, but I seriously doubt killing more Syrians will help; there is no military solution in Syria, IMHO.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you see as the solution ?
> Let the current war just play out ?? I also don't want a war with the U.S and Syria, but I also don't believe that doing nothing will help
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## paulitician

Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?


----------



## The T

paulitician said:


> Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?


 Have a link to that? Or should I look it up...my first reaction was to ask _by whom?_


----------



## The T

paulitician said:


> Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?


I looked it UP...when did he say that? "Just said it" Gracie?

Try again...


----------



## Foxfyre

I don't think Graham said that, but he and McCain are among the hawks who do think Congress has to support Obama in punative measures against Syria.  Both have made their arguments, and I listened really carefully.  Both are of the opinion that Syria doesn't matter so much as what Iran will think if we give Syria a pass--they think Iran will see that as a full speed ahead signal because the USA lacks the balls to do anything to anybody.

But personally, I think anything but a fearsome blow taking out all of Syria's bases, et al, won't have much effect on anything other than giving al Qaida something additional to use as justification for targeting us infidels.

So here's the plan I've come up with.   Let's send Congress to Syria to deal with it.  Or at least those who are so gung ho to kill some people and blow stuff up.






Deal?


----------



## Hossfly

R.C. Christian said:


> I must have missed some pages in this never ending thread Hossfly. Are you for war with Syria?


No American involvement. Let the sonsabitches kill each other and let Allah sort 'em out.


----------



## Kondor3

Hoffstra said:


> 174 NO
> 
> 7 YES
> 
> 
> wow, this war is very unpopular in the USA.
> 
> Too bad Congress doesn't give a shit what the American people think.
> 
> They only care about the big money $$$$$ (*AIPAC*).



*Yeah, yeah, yeah... we know... it's all the Jews' doing...*


----------



## georgephillip

paulitician said:


> Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?


A couple of hours ago I heard someone on faaar Left Pacifica Radio make that same claim and dismissed it as tin-foil fiction. Maybe our "leaders" really are confused about how much harder it is for them to lie effectively in cyberspace? What false flags might occur if Obama isn't successful in attacking Assad? I'll try on the tin-foil hat first and suggest Bibi instigating a USS Liberty-type assault on US boots currently on the ground in Jordan (probably with Assad's Sarin gas).


----------



## georgephillip

toastman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some are suggesting more than one side in the Syrian conflict has access to chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.*
> 
> Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research
> 
> "An Israeli-Saudi-US conspiracy?
> 
> "The US-supported anti-government forces fighting inside Syria are the ones that have a track record of using chemical weapons. Yet, Obama and company have said nothing."
> 
> "Despite the anti-government forces accusations that the Syrian military launched a chemical weapon attack on Homs at Christmas in December 2012, CNN reported that the US military was training anti-government fighters with the securing and handling of chemical weapons. Under the name of the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion, the insurgents themselves even threatened to use nerve gas and released a video where they killed rabbits as a demonstration of what they planned on doing in Syria."
> 
> *I don't think Obama knows who was responsible for the latest atrocity in Syria, but I seriously doubt killing more Syrians will help; there is no military solution in Syria, IMHO.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what do you see as the solution ?
> Let the current war just play out ?? I also don't want a war with the U.S and Syria, but I also don't believe that doing nothing will help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect you are right.
> It's possible doing anything militarily will make it worse.
> 90% to 95% of Americans in some congressional districts want no part of more war in Syria.
> Nationwide, I think it's around 50% who oppose missile strikes on Assad.
> Perhaps the best we can do at this point is say "majority rules" and be on high alert for any incident remotely resembling a false flag operation and know the stakes become much higher when Graham and McCain start calling for missile strikes on Iran.
Click to expand...


----------



## R.C. Christian

If regime change is the goal, and I believe it is, then they're going to come at them with a lot more than pretty cruise missiles.


----------



## Kondor3

*Analysis: Obama growing isolated on Syria as support wanes*






_U.S. President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg September 6, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque_

(Reuters) - White House efforts to convince the U.S. Congress to back military action against Syria are not only failing, they seem to be stiffening the opposition.

That was the assessment on Sunday, not of an opponent but of an early and ardent Republican supporter of Obama's plan for attacking Syria, the influential Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers.

Rogers told CBS's "Face the Nation" the White House had made a "confusing mess" of the Syria issue. Now, he said, "I'm skeptical myself."

Congress will be in session on Monday for the first time since the August recess. Debate on Syria could begin in the full Senate this week, with voting as early as Wednesday. The House of Representatives could take up the issue later this week or next.

Obama is expected to spend the next several days in personal meetings with members.

Some Democratic opponents of a military strike, meanwhile, were looking for a way to spare Obama's administration the effects of a "no" vote.

Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts suggested that the president withdraw his request before it is defeated, saying on CNN's "State of the Union" that there was insufficient support for it in Congress.

...

Most opponents of the proposed U.S. military strike do not contest the administration's view that the Syrian government gassed its own people on August 21. Their expressed concerns focus instead on the effectiveness and potential unintended consequences of a U.S. military response.

Only about a quarter of the Senate's 100 members and fewer than 25 members of the 435-seat House have been willing to go on record in support of Obama's request, according to a tally by the Washington Post. Seventeen senators and 111 House members are on record against.

Leaders of both parties have characterized Syria as a "conscience vote," not subject to the usual pressure for party discipline. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, for example, has not made a personal pitch for votes in any of the five "Dear Colleague" letters she has sent her fellow Democrats.

...

Rogers, among others, faults Obama for not starting months ago to build congressional and public support on Syria.

"They don't have strong relationships in Congress today - that's a huge problem for them," said Rogers. "I think it's very clear he's lost support in the last week.

...

Analysis: Obama growing isolated on Syria as support wanes | Reuters


----------



## JoeB131

Again, if the Republicans vote against this, and Assad launches a bigger attack, then they will own that attack.


----------



## georgephillip

JoeB131 said:


> Again, if the Republicans vote against this, and Assad launches a bigger attack, then they will own that attack.


*How do you know Assad perpetrated the attack on Guta, and even if he did, there's evidence of some of the rebels employing chemical weapons as well?* 

Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research

"Despite the anti-government forces accusations that the Syrian military launched a chemical weapon attack on Homs at Christmas in December 2012, CNN reported that the US military was training anti-government fighters with the securing and handling of chemical weapons. Under the name of the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion, the insurgents themselves even threatened to use nerve gas and released a video where they killed rabbits as a demonstration of what they planned on doing in Syria."


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## KissMy

In Assad's interview with Charlie Rose that will air tonight on PBS, he was "very concerned that a US strike would degrade his own military and therefore make it more likely that it might tip the balance."

[youtube]Ctts8a-j8jI[/youtube]


----------



## Kondor3

KissMy said:


> _In Assad's interview with Charlie Rose that will air tonight on PBS, he was "very concerned that a US strike would degrade his own military and therefore make it more likely that it might tip the balance."_


Bright boy, eh?


----------



## paulitician

JoeB131 said:


> Again, if the Republicans vote against this, and Assad launches a bigger attack, then they will own that attack.



Not our business. It's their Civil War. No one in this country 'owns' anything going on in Syria. We have our own problems right here at home.


----------



## paulitician

The T said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?
> 
> 
> 
> I looked it UP...when did he say that? "Just said it" Gracie?
> 
> Try again...
Click to expand...


Pick up a Newspaper or check out the Interwebs. Lindsey Graham is a buffoon.


----------



## Kondor3

paulitician said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if the Republicans vote against this, and Assad launches a bigger attack, then they will own that attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not our business. It's their Civil War. No one in this country 'owns' anything going on in Syria. We have our own problems right here at home.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

Saying that Party A or B 'owns' an attack, should we come to our senses and refuse to intervene, strikes me as convoluted logic, and just plain silly.

Especially if we end-up walking away, saying: "_It's not our business. Have fun with your little war. Wake us up when you're done playing._"

"_Not our business_" means just that... not our business... nothing to do with us... past, present and future.


----------



## paulitician

georgephillip said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of hours ago I heard someone on faaar Left Pacifica Radio make that same claim and dismissed it as tin-foil fiction. Maybe our "leaders" really are confused about how much harder it is for them to lie effectively in cyberspace? What false flags might occur if Obama isn't successful in attacking Assad? I'll try on the tin-foil hat first and suggest Bibi instigating a USS Liberty-type assault on US boots currently on the ground in Jordan (probably with Assad's Sarin gas).
Click to expand...


No 'Slam Dunk' for Big Brother on this one. And that's obviously very disturbing to him. The Sheep are straying from the herd a bit. Now he's playing the Nuke-Card? Yikes! What a farce.


----------



## Camp

Kerry demands Assad give up all chem weapons to avoid an American strike. Putin suggest Assad give up chem weapons to UN control and offers assistance. The peace plan is emerging. Assad is being put in a box.


----------



## paulitician

Camp said:


> Kerry demands Assad give up all chem weapons to avoid an American strike. Putin suggest Assad give up chem weapons to UN control and offers assistance. The peace plan is emerging. Assad is being put in a box.



Sounds reasonable. Putin seems to be the voice of reason in this mess. He's made Obama & Kerry look like poor misguided Warmongers.


----------



## Kondor3

Camp said:


> Kerry demands Assad give up all chem weapons to avoid an American strike. Putin suggest Assad give up chem weapons to UN control and offers assistance. The peace plan is emerging. Assad is being put in a box.



Yeppers...

==============================

*Russia urges Syria hand over chemical weapons to intl control to avoid strike*

_RT (Russian) - Published time: September 09, 2013 14:16  - Edited time: September 09, 2013 16:37 (Moscow Time)
_
Russia has urged Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent destruction to avert a possible military strike.

&#8220;We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,&#8221; Lavrov said. &#8220;We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer,&#8221; he added.  

...

The Foreign Minister&#8217;s statement comes shortly after US Secretary of State John Kerry&#8217;s comment that the Syrian President &#8220;could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community&#8221; to avoid a military strike on the country. 

"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting [of it[, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done," Kerry said. 

Following Kerry&#8217;s statement, a US State Department spokeswoman clarified that &#8220;Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons&#8221;.

...

The Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said that Damascus was ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." 

The Russian and Syrian Foreign Ministers met in Moscow on Monday. 

...

Russia urges Syria hand over chemical weapons to intl control to avoid strike ? RT News

==============================

*Putin checkmates Obama?*

(taking away our excuse to hit Syria?)


----------



## Kondor3

*Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
*

_CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_

MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem stopped short of saying that the Syrian government had actually accepted the proposal.

"I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.

The statement came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.

Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.

Al-Moallem, however, wouldn't give any further details in his brief statement and didn't take any questions.

...

Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control - CBS News


----------



## RandallFlagg

Kondor3 said:


> *Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
> *
> 
> _CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_
> 
> MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
> 
> Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem stopped short of saying that the Syrian government had actually accepted the proposal.
> 
> "I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.
> 
> The statement came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
> 
> Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.
> 
> Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.
> 
> Al-Moallem, however, wouldn't give any further details in his brief statement and didn't take any questions.
> 
> ...
> 
> Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control - CBS News



I see how Hillary "The Wide" has began insinuating herself into the discussion now. Setting herself up for a presidential run.

Look, as long as whatever happens DOESN'T include ONE DROP of American blood, Im all for it. If Assad can be convinced to give up the chems - then good job. He can then go  on killing the opposition by the hundreds of thousands - since apparently no one really gives a hoot in hell about that.

I fail to see the logic here, but what the hell. As long as it gives our illustrious leader a way to finally look "presidential", so be it.


----------



## Kondor3

It would appear that Kerry said the wrong thing as Extempore, and was taken at his word by the Russians, who pounced on it like white-on-rice...

If that's the way it went-down behind the scenes, then, methinks ol' Vlad has managed to outflank Fearless Leader, and that Obama is going to have an even more difficult time trying to sell an airstrike to Congress...

Not sure, of course, but my Spidey-Sense tells me that Vlad just pulled the rug out from under Obama...


----------



## georgephillip

paulitician said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperate times. Lindsey Graham just said, if we don't go to War with Syria, we'll probably get Nuked. Huh? Saaaay Whaaaa?
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of hours ago I heard someone on faaar Left Pacifica Radio make that same claim and dismissed it as tin-foil fiction. Maybe our "leaders" really are confused about how much harder it is for them to lie effectively in cyberspace? What false flags might occur if Obama isn't successful in attacking Assad? I'll try on the tin-foil hat first and suggest Bibi instigating a USS Liberty-type assault on US boots currently on the ground in Jordan (probably with Assad's Sarin gas).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No 'Slam Dunk' for Big Brother on this one. And that's obviously very disturbing to him. The Sheep are straying from the herd a bit. Now he's playing the Nuke-Card? Yikes! What a farce.
Click to expand...

*More sheep need to halve their TV time and stray a little further into cyberspace.*


----------



## Bleipriester

Um... err... you know... *NO!*


----------



## percysunshine

Kondor3 said:


> It would appear that Kerry said the wrong thing as Extempore, and was taken at his word by the Russians, who pounced on it like white-on-rice...
> 
> If that's the way it went-down behind the scenes, then, methinks ol' Vlad has managed to outflank Fearless Leader, and that Obama is going to have an even more difficult time trying to sell an airstrike to Congress...
> 
> Not sure, of course, but my Spidey-Sense tells me that Vlad just pulled the rug out from under Obama...



He saved Obamas butt. Look at the vote total at the top of the screen. 174 to 7...in USMB.

Obama was going to get reamed in Congress. Now they likely won't even vote.


----------



## Bleipriester

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
> *
> 
> _CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_
> 
> MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
> 
> Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem stopped short of saying that the Syrian government had actually accepted the proposal.
> 
> "I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.
> 
> The statement came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
> 
> Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.
> 
> Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.
> 
> Al-Moallem, however, wouldn't give any further details in his brief statement and didn't take any questions.
> 
> ...
> 
> Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see how Hillary "The Wide" has began insinuating herself into the discussion now. Setting herself up for a presidential run.
> 
> Look, as long as whatever happens DOESN'T include ONE DROP of American blood, Im all for it. If Assad can be convinced to give up the chems - then good job. He can then go  on killing the opposition by the hundreds of thousands - since apparently no one really gives a hoot in hell about that.
> 
> I fail to see the logic here, but what the hell. As long as it gives our illustrious leader a way to finally look "presidential", so be it.
Click to expand...

It would cost reputation to kill the civilians protectiong the sites and ignore a country´s souvereignty and your leader doesn´t look "presidential" but contradictory.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Bleipriester said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
> *
> 
> _CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_
> 
> MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
> 
> Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem stopped short of saying that the Syrian government had actually accepted the proposal.
> 
> "I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.
> 
> The statement came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
> 
> Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.
> 
> Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.
> 
> Al-Moallem, however, wouldn't give any further details in his brief statement and didn't take any questions.
> 
> ...
> 
> Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see how Hillary "The Wide" has began insinuating herself into the discussion now. Setting herself up for a presidential run.
> 
> Look, as long as whatever happens DOESN'T include ONE DROP of American blood, Im all for it. If Assad can be convinced to give up the chems - then good job. He can then go  on killing the opposition by the hundreds of thousands - since apparently no one really gives a hoot in hell about that.
> 
> I fail to see the logic here, but what the hell. As long as it gives our illustrious leader a way to finally look "presidential", so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would cost reputation to kill the civilians protectiong the sites and ignore a country´s souvereignty and your leader doesn´t look "presidential" but contradictory.
Click to expand...


Indeed..


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Obama just said the most ridiculous thing in an interview, he said Assad must now sign the chemical weapons treaty. Now, we are taking sovereignty from nations and demanding they sign intl treaties as we command. Well, why dont we force Israel to sign the UN NONPROLIFERATION TREATY then? And Israel has not ratified the chemical weapons treaty. And if we really expect Syria and others to abide by the Chemical Weapons treaty, should we not stop violating its provisions ourself and stop sending chemical weapons to Israel to use against civilians in violation of that treaty?


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Bleipriester said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
> *
> 
> _CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_
> 
> MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
> 
> Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem stopped short of saying that the Syrian government had actually accepted the proposal.
> 
> "I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.
> 
> The statement came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
> 
> Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.
> 
> Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.
> 
> Al-Moallem, however, wouldn't give any further details in his brief statement and didn't take any questions.
> 
> ...
> 
> Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see how Hillary "The Wide" has began insinuating herself into the discussion now. Setting herself up for a presidential run.
> 
> Look, as long as whatever happens DOESN'T include ONE DROP of American blood, Im all for it. If Assad can be convinced to give up the chems - then good job. He can then go  on killing the opposition by the hundreds of thousands - since apparently no one really gives a hoot in hell about that.
> 
> I fail to see the logic here, but what the hell. As long as it gives our illustrious leader a way to finally look "presidential", so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would cost reputation to kill the civilians protectiong the sites and ignore a country´s souvereignty and your leader doesn´t look "presidential" but contradictory.
Click to expand...


Yes, killing those Syrian Christian human shields would not be looked at favorably.


----------



## Foxfyre

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
> *
> 
> _CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_
> 
> MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
> 
> Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem stopped short of saying that the Syrian government had actually accepted the proposal.
> 
> "I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.
> 
> The statement came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
> 
> Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.
> 
> Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.
> 
> Al-Moallem, however, wouldn't give any further details in his brief statement and didn't take any questions.
> 
> ...
> 
> Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see how Hillary "The Wide" has began insinuating herself into the discussion now. Setting herself up for a presidential run.
> 
> Look, as long as whatever happens DOESN'T include ONE DROP of American blood, Im all for it. If Assad can be convinced to give up the chems - then good job. He can then go  on killing the opposition by the hundreds of thousands - since apparently no one really gives a hoot in hell about that.
> 
> I fail to see the logic here, but what the hell. As long as it gives our illustrious leader a way to finally look "presidential", so be it.
Click to expand...


Yes, she is now cautiously hawkish re an attack on Syria conveniently forgetting that it was just about a year ago that she was praising Assad and describing him as a reformer.

If we ran her and Obama in a putz contest, I wonder which one would win?


----------



## paulitician

Hey, looks like a rare victory for the People. I'm shocked and pleased. No War with Syria? Who saw that one coming? Remember to thank all the Politicians who stood with the People on this. For now, Peace has won.


----------



## Indofred

Kondor3 said:


> *Syria says it "welcomes" Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
> *
> 
> _CBS/AP/ September 9, 2013, 12:21 PM_
> 
> MOSCOW Syria's foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia's proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.



I don't see they have much choice but I feel it's a good thing if it happens.
They may or may not have used any up to this point, but an international team in control would stop any potential future use.
However, my vote remains "no" as there is still zero evidence that Assad has used the things but there is evidence of a US plot to do so and blame Assad as we saw before.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

The "proposal" by Russia which pinhead Assad is accepting is certainly a fair enough cover for both (or all) sides.

I am never terribly reluctant to piss all over Obumbler, and he was a clusterfuck-up on this entire matter; but I will concede him a little bit of spin room.  Possibly even justified.

For all of Putin's bluff and bluster and for all of his semi-successful efforts to make Obumbler look like a weak-assed bitch, the bottom line here (if the Putin proposal is real) is that what Obumbler "demanded" he is in effect winning in the end.

I disdain the way he got there, but let's be fair.  Isn't it kind of a good thing (assuming again that the Putin proposal is genuine) that the OUTCOME is getting the chemical weapons out of pinhead Assad's hands?

A client state of Putin's Russia did have to cave in.  So Putin somehow managed to spin the entire story into his own bluff, bravado, bluster and to his own benefit.  But still, what Obumbler wanted (i.e., to take the chemical weapons out of Assad's control) is what we appear to be getting.

I'll settle for that.


----------



## paulitician

IlarMeilyr said:


> The "proposal" by Russia which pinhead Assad is accepting is certainly a fair enough cover for both (or all) sides.
> 
> I am never terribly reluctant to piss all over Obumbler, and he was a clusterfuck-up on this entire matter; but I will concede him a little bit of spin room.  Possibly even justified.
> 
> For all of Putin's bluff and bluster and for all of his semi-successful efforts to make Obumbler look like a weak-assed bitch, the bottom line here (if the Putin proposal is real) is that what Obumbler "demanded" he is in effect winning in the end.
> 
> I disdain the way he got there, but let's be fair.  Isn't it kind of a good thing (assuming again that the Putin proposal is genuine) that the OUTCOME is getting the chemical weapons out of pinhead Assad's hands?
> 
> A client state of Putin's Russia did have to cave in.  So Putin somehow managed to spin the entire story into his own bluff, bravado, bluster and to his own benefit.  But still, what Obumbler wanted (i.e., to take the chemical weapons out of Assad's control) is what we appear to be getting.
> 
> I'll settle for that.



Seems like a reasonable deal. And Putin does deserve a lot of credit for getting it done. He's defending his ally in a very sensible fashion. However, i still think it's absurd for our Nation to demand Syria or any other Nation submit to demands we wouldn't submit to ourselves. What if similar demands were made of us? Would we open our Nuclear facilities or stockpiles of various weapons for Syrian inspection? Or even UN inspection for that matter. But i'll take what i can get. No War...for now anyway.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Now, we have to stop the US from arming the Opposition.  We have no business doing that either.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Pledge that there will be no American military intervention in Syria.

The conflict in Syria is of grave concern. Anytime the blood of civilians spills in the name of freedom and liberty, free men and women must ask ourselves whether we can assist the dreams they are dying for.While tragic, this isn&#8217;t a US concern; it&#8217;s the United Nations.We the people don&#8217;t want to see our weapons used in the Syrian Civil War. There is valid concern that the FSA is aligned with sworn enemies of the United States. We&#8217;re aghast that you&#8217;re considering supporting them.   https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...american-military-intervention-syria/BqrM8b42  I was reading an article that indicated 70% of Americans opposed arming the Opposition.


----------



## toastman

IlarMeilyr said:


> The "proposal" by Russia which pinhead Assad is accepting is certainly a fair enough cover for both (or all) sides.
> 
> I am never terribly reluctant to piss all over Obumbler, and he was a clusterfuck-up on this entire matter; but I will concede him a little bit of spin room.  Possibly even justified.
> 
> For all of Putin's bluff and bluster and for all of his semi-successful efforts to make Obumbler look like a weak-assed bitch, the bottom line here (if the Putin proposal is real) is that what Obumbler "demanded" he is in effect winning in the end.
> 
> I disdain the way he got there, but let's be fair.  Isn't it kind of a good thing (assuming again that the Putin proposal is genuine) that the OUTCOME is getting the chemical weapons out of pinhead Assad's hands?
> 
> A client state of Putin's Russia did have to cave in.  So Putin somehow managed to spin the entire story into his own bluff, bravado, bluster and to his own benefit.  But still, what Obumbler wanted (i.e., to take the chemical weapons out of Assad's control) is what we appear to be getting.
> 
> I'll settle for that.



The question is, how do we know that Assad is going to put ALL of his chemical weapons under international .. Can't he just easily take some and hide them somewhere else in Syria ?


----------



## RandallFlagg

toastman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "proposal" by Russia which pinhead Assad is accepting is certainly a fair enough cover for both (or all) sides.
> 
> I am never terribly reluctant to piss all over Obumbler, and he was a clusterfuck-up on this entire matter; but I will concede him a little bit of spin room.  Possibly even justified.
> 
> For all of Putin's bluff and bluster and for all of his semi-successful efforts to make Obumbler look like a weak-assed bitch, the bottom line here (if the Putin proposal is real) is that what Obumbler "demanded" he is in effect winning in the end.
> 
> I disdain the way he got there, but let's be fair.  Isn't it kind of a good thing (assuming again that the Putin proposal is genuine) that the OUTCOME is getting the chemical weapons out of pinhead Assad's hands?
> 
> A client state of Putin's Russia did have to cave in.  So Putin somehow managed to spin the entire story into his own bluff, bravado, bluster and to his own benefit.  But still, what Obumbler wanted (i.e., to take the chemical weapons out of Assad's control) is what we appear to be getting.
> 
> I'll settle for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, how do we know that Assad is going to put ALL of his chemical weapons under international .. Can't he just easily take some and hide them somewhere else in Syria ?
Click to expand...



Well, we don't (or wouldn't). We would (most likely) depend on the UN Security Council to enforce the turnover or we would have to take Russia at their word, that the weapons had been turned over. 

Funny, I don't see how it could ever be enforced, seeings how we don't have a clue as to how much they have at the present time. It could be 1,000 tons. It could be 1,500 tons. It could be 8 tons. We have no clue. It's all just estimates right now. Just figures on paper. and we all know the old saying: "Figures lie and liars figure".


----------



## Kondor3

*Syria Admits It Has Chemical Weapons*

_ First Direct Acknowledgment Comes as Nations Clash Over Resolution_

_Wall Street Journal - Middle East News - Updated September 10, 2013, 3:50 p.m. ET_






French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius gives a news conference on the situation in Syria on Tuesday

Syria said it would cease production of chemical weapons and disclose the locations of its stockpiles to the United Nations, Russia and others, as Damascus seized on a possible diplomatic route to avert international military action.

The statement by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem represented the first direct admission by the Syrian government that it possesses chemical weapons. Mr. Moallem said Syria aimed to sign the international convention banning chemical weapons.

The offer came as Syria's ally Russia clashed with France over a possible U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at forcing Syria to hand over its stockpiles, following what the U.S. and France said was the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons in an attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21.

...

"We are ready to reveal the locations of the chemical weapon sites and to stop producing chemical weapons and make these sites available for the inspection of representatives of Russia, other countries and the United Nations," Mr. Moallem said, reading a statement to a pro-regime Lebanese TV station, al-Mayadeen. "We are ready to cooperate fully in implementing this [Russian] initiative, particularly given that we want to become a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention."

Russian President Vladimir Putin also clarified the need for Syria to stockpile chemical weapons.

"It's well known that Syria has a certain arsenal of chemical weapons and the Syrians always viewed that as an alternative [response] to Israel's nuclear weapons," Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday.

...

Syria Admits It Has Chemical Weapons - WSJ.com


----------



## flacaltenn

flacaltenn said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted yes.
> 
> For a variety of reasons.  For one, I think it will show what an imbecile the Stuttering Clusterfukk is.  And for another, killing Islamists isn't really a bad thing.  They're all crazy murdering douchebags anyway.
> 
> And for another, it will make the Stuttering Clusterfukk look like the douche he is.  Not to mention make him look like the hypocrite he is.  And for another thing, make him look like the limp-wristed fag he is.
> 
> And for another, make the whole world laugh at him, even some of his own party (sans the cult-worshippers, of which there are plenty on this Board)
> 
> And for another thing......  Oh yeah, it will be interesting to see how the Knee Pad wearing DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM spins this one.....
> 
> I think they go with, "Well, Congress wasn't in Session, soooo...."
> 
> Or they'll simply ignore it.
> 
> I think it's a minor strike.  Dead civilians will be paraded around for the Reporters, which the Reporters will dutifully ignore and the american DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM will also ignore.
> 
> And the "Congress wasn't in Session" excuse run a few times and then they ignore it until something else comes up and they'll spend all their time and energy on that.....  Maybe, Miley Cyrus Twerking or something else that the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM is interested in.
> 
> What kind of scumbag votes for a scumbag like hussein obama?
> 
> Amazing
> 
> 
> 
> I always love a cumbayah moment...but what is proposed is not war...so voting no on war does not mean we should drop a dime on Assad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ".... drop a dime on Assad... "..
> 
> I know I'll get blowback on this --- but I see it more as a "drive-by shooting".. With no real outcome to be expected.
> 
> In the VERY LEAST --- you'd think our "mental midgets" in charge of Foreign Policy would make some concrete demand. Like ----
> 
> _By 7:30 hours on Tues -- we want 4 tons of viable Chemical weapon cannisters and specially fitted warhead capsules on the DOCK at this Syrian Port for pick-up by NATO forces.
> Failure to comply with this transfer of materials WILL result in strategic reduction of the Syrian capability to wage war by Tues evening.. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
> 
> John Frog Kerrey --- US Sec. of State.. _
> 
> Wouldn't ever happen that way --- would it? Our foreign policy CONTINUES to suck and suck badly. For the larger part of my life..
Click to expand...


Yeah --- I bumped my older post.. Kinda proud of it.. Suggested the sequester of the chemical weapons BEFORE Putin did. And presciently predicted that John Fraud Kerrey would steal the idea.. 

Sometimes -- I'm right on the money...


----------



## Foxfyre

I wish I could just accept what we're all being spoon fed today, but alas I am too jaded to get very enthusiastic about all this.

Assad is now willing to stop production of and hand over chemical weapons that just a couple of days ago he wouldn't admit he had and still hasn't admitted he used?

I don't believe in my lifetime that I have EVER seen a bunch of politicians--Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, H Clinton, J Kerry, and Barack Obama, with a strong emphasis on the latter two-reverse positions, vacillate, contradict themselves, and seem utterly devoid of conviction as I have witnessed in the last couple of weeks or so.

And now we are to believe that Putin and Assad are suddenly afraid of the vague and shifting threats uttered by Barack Obama and are offering to secure Assad's "non-existant" chemical weapons to avoid a military strike by the USA?  Or are they both snickering that it is sooooo easy to manipulate Obama into doing whatever they want?

And meanwhile Obama still says he has authority to bomb Syria but nevertheless he will request Congress to defer the vote.  A vote that some pretty savvy people are pretty sure that he would have lost.  But assuming he would have gotten the authority to strike, why not go ahead an get it just in case chemical weapons are used again?

And we still don't know whether the Syrian rebels are friend or foe--stilll other very smart people think they are not people we would want in power in Syria-- and even the Administration has to admit it has no conclusive proof that it was Assad who used the chemical weapons.

So what has changed?

I would just shake my head in utter amazement if it wasn't spinning so fast.

I hope that all ya'll who are encouraged are right and I am wrong.


----------



## georgephillip

toastman said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "proposal" by Russia which pinhead Assad is accepting is certainly a fair enough cover for both (or all) sides.
> 
> I am never terribly reluctant to piss all over Obumbler, and he was a clusterfuck-up on this entire matter; but I will concede him a little bit of spin room.  Possibly even justified.
> 
> For all of Putin's bluff and bluster and for all of his semi-successful efforts to make Obumbler look like a weak-assed bitch, the bottom line here (if the Putin proposal is real) is that what Obumbler "demanded" he is in effect winning in the end.
> 
> I disdain the way he got there, but let's be fair.  Isn't it kind of a good thing (assuming again that the Putin proposal is genuine) that the OUTCOME is getting the chemical weapons out of pinhead Assad's hands?
> 
> A client state of Putin's Russia did have to cave in.  So Putin somehow managed to spin the entire story into his own bluff, bravado, bluster and to his own benefit.  But still, what Obumbler wanted (i.e., to take the chemical weapons out of Assad's control) is what we appear to be getting.
> 
> I'll settle for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, how do we know that Assad is going to put ALL of his chemical weapons under international .. Can't he just easily take some and hide them somewhere else in Syria ?
Click to expand...

*How do we know if Assad is the only player hiding chemical weapons in Syria?*

"Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations.

Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack | McClatchy


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons

*Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?


----------



## skye

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?




awwwwwwwwwwww

CIA documents reveal USA stockpile of chemical weapons too!  

and  also ..... you can throw one or two  nuclear weapons to the mix!  LOL

so..........what you going to do about it?


----------



## flacaltenn

skye said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> CIA documents reveal USA stockpile of chemical weapons too!
> 
> and  also ..... you can throw one or two  nuclear weapons to the mix!  LOL
> 
> so..........what you going to do about it?
Click to expand...


If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years.. 

I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two.. 
Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.


----------



## skye

flacaltenn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> CIA documents reveal USA stockpile of chemical weapons too!
> 
> and  also ..... you can throw one or two  nuclear weapons to the mix!  LOL
> 
> so..........what you going to do about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years..
> 
> I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two..
> Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.

I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.


----------



## Connery

flacaltenn said:


> If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years..
> 
> *I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two.*.
> Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.



Who would you suggest hold those "keys" during this period?


----------



## RandallFlagg

skye said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> CIA documents reveal USA stockpile of chemical weapons too!
> 
> and  also ..... you can throw one or two  nuclear weapons to the mix!  LOL
> 
> so..........what you going to do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years..
> 
> I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two..
> Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more. The USA learned from having used "the bomb". Twice. We will NEVER use them again unless attacked first. The same with Israel.

The crazies in the rest of the Middle East? Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.....God help us if the wrong "freedom fighter" (code for Jihadist) ever gets their grimy little hands on one.

But trust me on this...sooner or later, at some point, one of these nutbags WILL get one. Or a Biological weapon. Or a nerve agent. It WILL happen.


----------



## Foxfyre

Seems the AP isn't too impressed with President Obama's speech tonight:



> By: Calvin Woodward (Associated Press)
> 
> President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.
> 
> A look at his remarks to the nation, seeking support for a military strike against Syria, and how they compare with the facts as publicly known:
> 
> OBAMA: "We know the Assad regime was responsible.... The facts cannot be denied."
> 
> THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.
> 
> The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
> 
> 
> Read more: AP FACT CHECK SHATTERS OBAMA SYRIA SPEECH - Fox Nation


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

skye said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> awwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> CIA documents reveal USA stockpile of chemical weapons too!
> 
> and  also ..... you can throw one or two  nuclear weapons to the mix!  LOL
> 
> so..........what you going to do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years..
> 
> I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two..
> Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
Click to expand...


Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!


----------



## georgephillip

Foxfyre said:


> Seems the AP isn't too impressed with President Obama's speech tonight:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By: Calvin Woodward (Associated Press)
> 
> President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.
> 
> A look at his remarks to the nation, seeking support for a military strike against Syria, and how they compare with the facts as publicly known:
> 
> OBAMA: "We know the Assad regime was responsible.... The facts cannot be denied."
> 
> THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.
> 
> The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
> 
> 
> Read more: AP FACT CHECK SHATTERS OBAMA SYRIA SPEECH - Fox Nation
Click to expand...

"The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children  a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. 

"In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad's forces of gassing to death 'over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.'"

AP FACT CHECK SHATTERS OBAMA SYRIA SPEECH - Fox Nation

*Possibly the internet is making it more difficult for tools like Kerry and Assad to govern?*


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the AP isn't too impressed with President Obama's speech tonight:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By: Calvin Woodward (Associated Press)
> 
> President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.
> 
> A look at his remarks to the nation, seeking support for a military strike against Syria, and how they compare with the facts as publicly known:
> 
> OBAMA: "We know the Assad regime was responsible.... The facts cannot be denied."
> 
> THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.
> 
> The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
> 
> 
> Read more: AP FACT CHECK SHATTERS OBAMA SYRIA SPEECH - Fox Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children  a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502.
> 
> "In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad's forces of gassing to death 'over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.'"
> 
> AP FACT CHECK SHATTERS OBAMA SYRIA SPEECH - Fox Nation
> 
> *Possibly the internet is making it more difficult for tools like Kerry and Assad to govern?*
Click to expand...


The custom has simply evolved of telling lies to start wars. The only way the American people can stop these wars based on lies is do exactly what Americans just did to stop strikes against Syria.


----------



## paulitician

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia



I said it was all War Propaganda B.S. from the beginning. There was absolutely no benefit to Assad in using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen.


----------



## Uncensored2008

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?



Don't be absurd.

Israel has nukes, what the hell would they need chemical weapons for?


----------



## High_Gravity

Uncensored2008 said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be absurd.
> 
> Israel has nukes, what the hell would they need chemical weapons for?
Click to expand...


Sherri hates Israel she will say anything to bad mouth them.


----------



## Kondor3

paulitician said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it was all War Propaganda B.S. from the beginning. There was absolutely no benefit to Assad in using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Several of the video-clips that I saw of supposed 'victims' looked about as real as a $3-Dollar Bill... with amateur actors playing their first role in makeup... surprisingly ambulatory and spry for folks just exposed to nerve-gas and the like.

Still, the UN Human Rights Council is oftentimes more farce and non sequitur soapbox than anything else, and their present membership...

Current Membership of the HRC

...contains some of the worst offenders of human rights (including indentured servitude and pseudo-slavery) on the face of the planet, which does nothing for its credibility.

If the UN-HRC says they're fake, then, I think I want a second opinion.

Me... I'm waiting for the Report of the UN Weapons Team which left Syria last week, as the most likely objective arbiter of whether or not the Assad Regime used such weapons.

Then again... regardless of WHO used them... IF, indeed, anyone at all... it's none of our friggin' business; the Euros and Arabs can handle this, while we sit this one out, for once.

Mebbe we can provide some logistics support and supply-line guardians, just to honor our alliances, but that should be it. We don't have to take-the-lead EVRY time, and we don't have to prop-up the Combat Arms part of the effort, ALL the time, do we?


----------



## Kondor3

High_Gravity said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> CIA documents reveal *Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons*
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be absurd.
> 
> Israel has nukes, what the hell would they need chemical weapons for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sherri hates Israel she will say anything to bad mouth them.
Click to expand...


Even if Israel *DOES* have chemical weapons stockpiles...

They would exist only as a final, desperate defensive tactic, should the Barbarians (_the enemy liver-eaters and heart-eaters_) ever again get over the walls, and there was no other choice (_other than playing the even worse nuclear card_) in order to save The Nation, if its back is ever up against the Mediterranean...

And I cannot imagine a scenario in which Jews would be using nerve-gas on Jews, in light of their experiences in the 1930s and 1940s...

The Syrians, on the other hand, are apparently using nerve-gas on their *own people*...

Which is a whole 'nother level of Barbaric, and about as despicable a war-crime as one can conjure...

If anyone in that Region is to be trusted with chemical weapons...

I would much rather that the sane, rational, pragmatic Israelis possess them, rather than their foaming-at-the-mouth mad-dog liver- and heart-eating Barbarian-neighbors.


----------



## Foxfyre

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years..
> 
> I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two..
> Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!
Click to expand...


Neither the USA nor Israel have a track record of blowing up people without any reason other than they don't like them or wish to obliterate them from the face of the Earth.  Both nations, with great military power, have proven track records of using such weapons responsibly.  Both the USA and Israel have a track record of going to great lengths to protect their own citizens, most especially women and children, and to minimize collateral damage to the innocents among their enemies.

Many of the more militant Islamic groups do have a track record of using weaponry irresponsibly or as terrorist tools to injure, maim, or kill as many civilians--men, women, and children--as possible because they consider nobody but themselves to be innocent.  They have a track record of placing their weaponry among women and children to ensure maximum carnage of their own in event of retalitory strikes, just so they can accuse the other side of atrocities.

I honestly don't care what manner of weapon Israel owns because Israel has proved itself to be non aggressive and responsible.  Ditto the USA.

There aren't many predominantly Islamic nations I can say that about.


----------



## Spoonman

Kondor3 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it was all War Propaganda B.S. from the beginning. There was absolutely no benefit to Assad in using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of the video-clips that I saw of supposed 'victims' looked about as real as a $3-Dollar Bill... with amateur actors playing their first role in makeup... surprisingly ambulatory and spry for folks just exposed to nerve-gas and the like.
> 
> Still, the UN Human Rights Council is oftentimes more farce and non sequitur soapbox than anything else, and their present membership...
> 
> Current Membership of the HRC
> 
> ...contains some of the worst offenders of human rights (including indentured servitude and pseudo-slavery) on the face of the planet, which does nothing for its credibility.
> 
> If the UN-HRC says they're fake, then, I think I want a second opinion.
> 
> Me... I'm waiting for the Report of the UN Weapons Team which left Syria last week, as the most likely objective arbiter of whether or not the Assad Regime used such weapons.
> 
> Then again... regardless of WHO used them... IF, indeed, anyone at all... it's none of our friggin' business; the Euros and Arabs can handle this, while we sit this one out, for once.
> 
> Mebbe we can provide some logistics support and supply-line guardians, just to honor our alliances, but that should be it. We don't have to take-the-lead EVRY time, and we don't have to prop-up the Combat Arms part of the effort, ALL the time, do we?
Click to expand...


really, i thought i was watching a bad night of  the living dead remake


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Spoonman said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it was all War Propaganda B.S. from the beginning. There was absolutely no benefit to Assad in using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several of the video-clips that I saw of supposed 'victims' looked about as real as a $3-Dollar Bill... with amateur actors playing their first role in makeup... surprisingly ambulatory and spry for folks just exposed to nerve-gas and the like.
> 
> Still, the UN Human Rights Council is oftentimes more farce and non sequitur soapbox than anything else, and their present membership...
> 
> Current Membership of the HRC
> 
> ...contains some of the worst offenders of human rights (including indentured servitude and pseudo-slavery) on the face of the planet, which does nothing for its credibility.
> 
> If the UN-HRC says they're fake, then, I think I want a second opinion.
> 
> Me... I'm waiting for the Report of the UN Weapons Team which left Syria last week, as the most likely objective arbiter of whether or not the Assad Regime used such weapons.
> 
> Then again... regardless of WHO used them... IF, indeed, anyone at all... it's none of our friggin' business; the Euros and Arabs can handle this, while we sit this one out, for once.
> 
> Mebbe we can provide some logistics support and supply-line guardians, just to honor our alliances, but that should be it. We don't have to take-the-lead EVRY time, and we don't have to prop-up the Combat Arms part of the effort, ALL the time, do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really, i thought i was watching a bad night of  the living dead remake
Click to expand...


Clarification: UN Human Rights Council says photos and videos fake. The United States Human Rights Watch is not saying that, their opinion is Assad carried out the attack. But they accept the fake photos as genuine and generally rely on circumstantial evidence. And they are not carrying out a full investigation.


----------



## georgephillip

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?


*Israel and the US are self-immunized from international law.
Who has murdered more children with chemical weapons over the last seven decades, Syria or the US?*

"While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents," the document adds, "several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems."

"Whether Israel still maintains this alleged stockpile is unknown. In 1992, the Israeli government signed but never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans such arms. (The Israeli embassy in Washington did not respond to requests to comment on this article.) 

"The CIA estimate, a copy of which was sent to the White House, also shows that the U.S. intelligence community had suspicions about this stockpile for decades, and that the U.S. government kept mum about Israel's suspected possession of chemical weapons just as long."

Exclusive: Does Israel Have Chemical Weapons Too? - By Matthew M. Aid | Foreign Policy


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither the USA nor Israel have a track record of blowing up people without any reason other than they don't like them or wish to obliterate them from the face of the Earth.  Both nations, with great military power, have proven track records of using such weapons responsibly.  Both the USA and Israel have a track record of going to great lengths to protect their own citizens, most especially women and children, and to minimize collateral damage to the innocents among their enemies.
> 
> Many of the more militant Islamic groups do have a track record of using weaponry irresponsibly or as terrorist tools to injure, maim, or kill as many civilians--men, women, and children--as possible because they consider nobody but themselves to be innocent.  They have a track record of placing their weaponry among women and children to ensure maximum carnage of their own in event of retalitory strikes, just so they can accuse the other side of atrocities.
> 
> I honestly don't care what manner of weapon Israel owns because Israel has proved itself to be non aggressive and responsible.  Ditto the USA.
> 
> There aren't many predominantly Islamic nations I can say that about.
Click to expand...


----------



## High_Gravity

georgephillip said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel and the US are self-immunized from international law.
> Who has murdered more children with chemical weapons over the last seven decades, Syria or the US?*
> 
> "While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents," the document adds, "several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems."
> 
> "Whether Israel still maintains this alleged stockpile is unknown. In 1992, the Israeli government signed but never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans such arms. (The Israeli embassy in Washington did not respond to requests to comment on this article.)
> 
> "The CIA estimate, a copy of which was sent to the White House, also shows that the U.S. intelligence community had suspicions about this stockpile for decades, and that the U.S. government kept mum about Israel's suspected possession of chemical weapons just as long."
> 
> Exclusive: Does Israel Have Chemical Weapons Too? - By Matthew M. Aid | Foreign Policy
Click to expand...


Thats an easy one, Syria. Next question.


----------



## georgephillip

High_Gravity said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons
> 
> *Wednesday September 11, 2013 00:27*by SaA newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons - International Middle East Media Center.   What shall we do about this?
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel and the US are self-immunized from international law.
> Who has murdered more children with chemical weapons over the last seven decades, Syria or the US?*
> 
> "While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents," the document adds, "several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems."
> 
> "Whether Israel still maintains this alleged stockpile is unknown. In 1992, the Israeli government signed but never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans such arms. (The Israeli embassy in Washington did not respond to requests to comment on this article.)
> 
> "The CIA estimate, a copy of which was sent to the White House, also shows that the U.S. intelligence community had suspicions about this stockpile for decades, and that the U.S. government kept mum about Israel's suspected possession of chemical weapons just as long."
> 
> Exclusive: Does Israel Have Chemical Weapons Too? - By Matthew M. Aid | Foreign Policy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats an easy one, Syria. Next question.
Click to expand...

"The war in Vietnam primarilyand most heavily affected the Vietnamese people, north and south. The number of casualtiescivilian and militarywas enormous. According to conservative estimates, about 4 million Vietnamese on all sides were killed, wounded, or missing during the 1965-1975 period alone. 

"*The Pentagons final estimate of civilian casualties for the South, a nation of about 18 million in 1972, was as high as 1,225,000 for the period between 1965 and 1972*. 

"A U.S. Senate subcommittee report estimated 1,350,000 civilian casualties, including 415,000 killed, for the same period. 'Enemy soldiers' killed were at least 850,000, according to both estimates. A substantial number of these 'enemy soldiers,' however, were civilians whom the U.S. military defined as 'enemy' because they were within free-fire zones, areas controlled by the National Liberation Front (NLF). 

"Estimates of casualties suffered by the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces ran from 300,000 to 500,000. During the post-war of 1973-1975, another half a million Vietnamese were killed and wounded340,000 of them were civiliansaccording to the U.S. and South Vietnamese estimates.

"*Vice President Nguyen Thi Binh of 2 million Agent Orange victims to whom the Vietnamese government pays compensation for combatants 1961-1975 and their children (March 2000). The figure today is greater than 3 million Agent Orange victims in Vietnam, including children of the second and third generations."
*
VAORRC ? Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign


----------



## Spoonman

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several of the video-clips that I saw of supposed 'victims' looked about as real as a $3-Dollar Bill... with amateur actors playing their first role in makeup... surprisingly ambulatory and spry for folks just exposed to nerve-gas and the like.
> 
> Still, the UN Human Rights Council is oftentimes more farce and non sequitur soapbox than anything else, and their present membership...
> 
> Current Membership of the HRC
> 
> ...contains some of the worst offenders of human rights (including indentured servitude and pseudo-slavery) on the face of the planet, which does nothing for its credibility.
> 
> If the UN-HRC says they're fake, then, I think I want a second opinion.
> 
> Me... I'm waiting for the Report of the UN Weapons Team which left Syria last week, as the most likely objective arbiter of whether or not the Assad Regime used such weapons.
> 
> Then again... regardless of WHO used them... IF, indeed, anyone at all... it's none of our friggin' business; the Euros and Arabs can handle this, while we sit this one out, for once.
> 
> Mebbe we can provide some logistics support and supply-line guardians, just to honor our alliances, but that should be it. We don't have to take-the-lead EVRY time, and we don't have to prop-up the Combat Arms part of the effort, ALL the time, do we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really, i thought i was watching a bad night of  the living dead remake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarification: UN Human Rights Council says photos and videos fake. The United States Human Rights Watch is not saying that, their opinion is Assad carried out the attack. But they accept the fake photos as genuine and generally rely on circumstantial evidence. And they are not carrying out a full investigation.
Click to expand...


just like obama to want to bomb them over circumstantial evidence.


----------



## Kondor3

There is an enormous difference between suffering after-effects from a defoliant which is intended to kill plant-life, and using sarin-gas, which is intended to kill human life.

Did the United States know that Agent Orange (and Blue, and whatever) had a high toxicity rate and a high ultimate mortality rate, at the time of their use (1961-1971)?

Hell, we were using DDT here in the US for decades, until the government eventually discovered and confirmed its toxicity and long-term effects.

There is also an enormous difference in intent.

The US intended to kill-off jungle-growth and enemy crops.

The effects upon human beings took months or years to manifest in full.

The Syrians intended to kill-off their own rebellious people.

The effects upon human beings took mere seconds after contact.

That sort of faux analogy just won't cut it.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Kondor3 said:


> There is an enormous difference between suffering after-effects from a defoliant which is intended to kill plant-life, and using sarin-gas, which is intended to kill human life.
> 
> Did the United States know that Agent Orange (and Blue, and whatever) had a high toxicity rate and a high ultimate mortality rate, at the time of their use (1961-1971)?
> 
> Hell, we were using DDT here in the US for decades, until the government eventually discovered and confirmed its toxicity and long-term effects.
> 
> There is also an enormous difference in intent.
> 
> The US intended to kill-off jungle-growth and enemy crops.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took months or years to manifest in full.
> 
> The Syrians intended to kill-off their own rebellious people.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took mere seconds after contact.
> 
> That sort of faux analogy just won't cut it.



The Chemical Weapons Treaty makes none of these distinctions, all it requires is using a chemical as a weapon against people. That is all it takes. And when people are hurt and killed in these substantial numbers we are addressing, they obviously have been targeted with chemical weapons .


----------



## Kondor3

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> "..._The Chemical Weapons Treaty makes none of these distinctions, all it requires is using a chemical as a weapon against people. That is all it takes. And when people are hurt and killed in these substantial numbers we are addressing, they obviously have been targeted with chemical weapons._"


Was Agent Orange classified as a Chemical Weapon, in violation of Treaty, at the time of its use (1961-1971)?

After all, it was developed in the 1940s, and there was a good 18-28 years between the time of its development and early (and publicly-known) domestic usages and its first use as a foliage and crop-destroying agent, so the International Community had plenty of time in which to classify it as a Chemical Weapon...

Is Agent Orange classified as a Chemical Weapon today, officially, in the context of the Treaty?

And, as to 'targeting people', you are incorrect...

It can be proven that the US utilized the agent to clear-away jungle canopies and undergrowth that had been providing cover for enemy troop movements...

It can be proven that the US utilized the agent to damage or destroy enemy crops, as a strategic initiative...

Given that a great many of our own military personnel (veterans) were afflicted by illness attributable to that agent, and that the government, after some initial resistance in the 1970s and 1980s, is providing for the care of such afflicted individuals, at great expense, in order to set things right...

Given that the Vietnamese had initially claimed highly unrealistic figures for the number of people who died or were made ill, and, given that once those numbers had been brought down out of the clouds and verification procedures put into place that satisfied both sides, and given that the US government has been generous in its compensation for such victims, in order to set things right...

Something tells me that the use of Agent Orange - a herbicide that had been in use on a smaller scale since the middle 1940s - was not intended as a Chemical Attack upon People, rather, it was simply a mistake to use so potent a herbicide, because it might end-up harming people, as well...

I wonder if the same thing can be said about the Assad Regime, and sarin gas, and their motives, or, for that matter, their intention to compensate their victims and to provide for their care?

Yer beatin' a dead horse with this one, Sherri...

Trying to draw substantive equivalencies between US utilization of Agent Orange and the Assad Regime's use of sarin gas?






And, if your perspective is so doggone operative in the Real World, why have we not been serious and substantive charges of Treaty Violations by the United States, in the UN, etc., in connection with Agent Orange usage?

I'll tell you why...

Because those banging the drum loudest against the US in this matter are Russians and European and American Leftists...

And because formal charges would never get past first base in either the UN or the Hague...

The US might be able to squash proceedings or get a verdict overturned...

But the US cannot stop such charges being filed and publicized...

And I haven't seen any of THAT, either, although I could certainly have missed something over the years.

Why have such charges not been filed at that level?

Because those charges (_that the US intentionally used Chemical Weapons against people_) in the Vietnam-Agent Orange context are patently false...

The same (_unintentional, because they did not understand all its after-effects_) cannot be said of the Assad Regime, in its barbaric use of sarin nerve-gas against its own people...

No sale...


----------



## skye

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's one country the world shouldn't trust with that stockpile of weapons, it would the country that has bombed and strafed 10 countries in the past 20 years..
> 
> I sometimes think we should have the keys taken away for a month or two..
> Especially with the complete absence of ingenuity that our leaders have shown on Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!
Click to expand...




The problem is that crazed Middle Eastern  Islamists and terrorists already have access or could gain access to these weapons and you can see the result! they are already slaughtering each other with them!

Unfortunately, your sympathies, as always, are with the terrorists and therefore you are not an objective commentator.

The hypocrisy lies in your one-sided  view point, which always sympathises with the terrorists.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

The fact nations and government officials may seemingly never be held responsible for their war crimes does not make them any less the war crimes  they are. 


"The United States does not want to admit that its use of chemicals with poison as weapons of war on civilian populations violates the laws of war, which recognize the principle of distinction between military and civilian objects, requiring armies to avoid civilian targets. These laws of war are enshrined in the Hague Convention and the Nuremberg principles, and are codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Optional Protocol of 1977, as well as the International Criminal Court statute. The use of Agent Orange on civilian populations violates the laws of war; yet no one has been held to account. Taxpayers pick up the tab of the Agent Orange Compensation fund for U. S. Veterans at a cost of $1.52 billion a year. The chemical companies, most specifically Dow and Monsanto, which profited from the manufacture of Agent Orange, paid a pittance to settle the veterans&#8217; lawsuit to compensate them, as the unintended victims, for their Agent Orange-related illnesses. But the Vietnamese continue to suffer from these violations with almost no recognition, as do the offspring of Agent Orange-exposed U.S. veterans and Vietnamese-Americans."

The commission of the war crime lies in violations of the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention.

No Reckoning over Agent Orange | Consortiumnews


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

skye said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that crazed Middle Eastern  Islamists and terrorists already have access or could gain access to these weapons and you can see the result! they are already slaughtering each other with them!
> 
> Unfortunately, your sympathies, as always, are with the terrorists and therefore you are not an objective commentator.
> 
> The hypocrisy lies in your one-sided  view point, which always sympathises with the terrorists.
Click to expand...


What I see is the US has caused suffering and death to millions with chemical weapons, and I do not see Syria or any other nation doing that.

Iraq killed 150,000 Iranian soldiers with chemical weapons the US helped Saddam produce, therefore I would give the US credit for those chemical weapons deaths, too.


----------



## skye

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that crazed Middle Eastern  Islamists and terrorists already have access or could gain access to these weapons and you can see the result! they are already slaughtering each other with them!
> 
> Unfortunately, your sympathies, as always, are with the terrorists and therefore you are not an objective commentator.
> 
> The hypocrisy lies in your one-sided  view point, which always sympathises with the terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I see is the US has caused suffering and death to millions with chemical weapons, and    * I do not see Syria or any other nation doing that.  *
Click to expand...


You don't?

 Pick up a newspaper    you might learn a thing or two!


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> There is an enormous difference between suffering after-effects from a defoliant which is intended to kill plant-life, and using sarin-gas, which is intended to kill human life.
> 
> Did the United States know that Agent Orange (and Blue, and whatever) had a high toxicity rate and a high ultimate mortality rate, at the time of their use (1961-1971)?
> 
> Hell, we were using DDT here in the US for decades, until the government eventually discovered and confirmed its toxicity and long-term effects.
> 
> There is also an enormous difference in intent.
> 
> The US intended to kill-off jungle-growth and enemy crops.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took months or years to manifest in full.
> 
> The Syrians intended to kill-off their own rebellious people.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took mere seconds after contact.
> 
> That sort of faux analogy just won't cut it.


Why don't you prove which Syrian rebels tried to kill "their own people" before you wander off half-cocked into a star-spangled salute to the humanitarian consequences dioxins contributed to the heroic US invasion of South Vietnam?


----------



## Bloodrock44

skye said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with USA  or Israel having these weapons.
> 
> I have a big problem with  some  crazy   Middle Eastern Regimes  having them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprised you have no problems with the US or Israel blowing up the world. What Hypocrisy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that crazed Middle Eastern  Islamists and terrorists already have access or could gain access to these weapons and you can see the result! they are already slaughtering each other with them!
> 
> Unfortunately, your sympathies, as always, are with the terrorists and therefore you are not an objective commentator.
> 
> The hypocrisy lies in your one-sided  view point, which always sympathises with the terrorists.
Click to expand...


*Spot on Skye. Notice how Shia Sherri is calling Americans war criminals and butchers now? She even said she's ashamed to be an American. I'll bet O'Squealios next paycheck she's not an American after all. And now she's got me stumped. Who does she despise more? Jews or Americans?*


----------



## Kondor3

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> "_The fact nations and government officials may seemingly never be held responsible for their war crimes does not make them any less the war crimes  they are_..."



An Op-Ed piece is hardly prima facie evidence of either Illegality OR intent, I'm afraid.


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The Chemical Weapons Treaty makes none of these distinctions, all it requires is using a chemical as a weapon against people. That is all it takes. And when people are hurt and killed in these substantial numbers we are addressing, they obviously have been targeted with chemical weapons._"
> 
> 
> 
> Was Agent Orange classified as a Chemical Weapon, in violation of Treaty, at the time of its use (1961-1971)?
> 
> After all, it was developed in the 1940s, and there was a good 18-28 years between the time of its development and early (and publicly-known) domestic usages and its first use as a foliage and crop-destroying agent, so the International Community had plenty of time in which to classify it as a Chemical Weapon...
> 
> Is Agent Orange classified as a Chemical Weapon today, officially, in the context of the Treaty?
> 
> And, as to 'targeting people', you are incorrect...
> 
> It can be proven that the US utilized the agent to clear-away jungle canopies and undergrowth that had been providing cover for enemy troop movements...
> 
> It can be proven that the US utilized the agent to damage or destroy enemy crops, as a strategic initiative...
> 
> Given that a great many of our own military personnel (veterans) were afflicted by illness attributable to that agent, and that the government, after some initial resistance in the 1970s and 1980s, is providing for the care of such afflicted individuals, at great expense, in order to set things right...
> 
> Given that the Vietnamese had initially claimed highly unrealistic figures for the number of people who died or were made ill, and, given that once those numbers had been brought down out of the clouds and verification procedures put into place that satisfied both sides, and given that the US government has been generous in its compensation for such victims, in order to set things right...
> 
> Something tells me that the use of Agent Orange - a herbicide that had been in use on a smaller scale since the middle 1940s - was not intended as a Chemical Attack upon People, rather, it was simply a mistake to use so potent a herbicide, because it might end-up harming people, as well...
> 
> I wonder if the same thing can be said about the Assad Regime, and sarin gas, and their motives, or, for that matter, their intention to compensate their victims and to provide for their care?
> 
> Yer beatin' a dead horse with this one, Sherri...
> 
> Trying to draw substantive equivalencies between US utilization of Agent Orange and the Assad Regime's use of sarin gas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if your perspective is so doggone operative in the Real World, why have we not been serious and substantive charges of Treaty Violations by the United States, in the UN, etc., in connection with Agent Orange usage?
> 
> I'll tell you why...
> 
> Because those banging the drum loudest against the US in this matter are Russians and European and American Leftists...
> 
> And because formal charges would never get past first base in either the UN or the Hague...
> 
> The US might be able to squash proceedings or get a verdict overturned...
> 
> But the US cannot stop such charges being filed and publicized...
> 
> And I haven't seen any of THAT, either, although I could certainly have missed something over the years.
> 
> Why have such charges not been filed at that level?
> 
> Because those charges (_that the US intentionally used Chemical Weapons against people_) in the Vietnam-Agent Orange context are patently false...
> 
> The same (_unintentional, because they did not understand all its after-effects_) cannot be said of the Assad Regime, in its barbaric use of sarin nerve-gas against its own people...
> 
> No sale...
Click to expand...

You still haven't provided any proof of the Assad Regime's barbaric use of Sarin nerve gas against its own people, why is that?


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an enormous difference between suffering after-effects from a defoliant which is intended to kill plant-life, and using sarin-gas, which is intended to kill human life.
> 
> Did the United States know that Agent Orange (and Blue, and whatever) had a high toxicity rate and a high ultimate mortality rate, at the time of their use (1961-1971)?
> 
> Hell, we were using DDT here in the US for decades, until the government eventually discovered and confirmed its toxicity and long-term effects.
> 
> There is also an enormous difference in intent.
> 
> The US intended to kill-off jungle-growth and enemy crops.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took months or years to manifest in full.
> 
> The Syrians intended to kill-off their own rebellious people.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took mere seconds after contact.
> 
> That sort of faux analogy just won't cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Why don't you prove which Syrian rebels tried to kill 'their own people' before you wander off half-cocked into a star-spangled salute to the humanitarian consequences_...
Click to expand...


Who said anything about Syrian Rebels?

I was talking about the Assad Regime.

As to 'star-spangled salute to the humanitarian consequences'...

I have no clue what you are trying to get-at...

I also have the sense that YOU have no clue what you are trying to get-at, either...

So it's all good...

As to dioxins in Vietnam...

Thank you for the link to the 'dioxin' write-up...

Very informative...

Now, tell us how...

1. this applies to the US utilization of Agent Orange in Vietnam

2. this proves that the US knew its long-term effects would prove so harmful.

3. this proves that the US intentionally used it as a long-term anti-personnel weapon rather than as a defoliant.

Because I'm just not seeing it.

Then again, I don't have your Rabid Anti-American Spleen to Vent, nor your Rabid Anti-American Agenda to advance, either...

Never mind dealing with you dodging some of the points raised earlier about Foreknowledge and Intent...


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an enormous difference between suffering after-effects from a defoliant which is intended to kill plant-life, and using sarin-gas, which is intended to kill human life.
> 
> Did the United States know that Agent Orange (and Blue, and whatever) had a high toxicity rate and a high ultimate mortality rate, at the time of their use (1961-1971)?
> 
> Hell, we were using DDT here in the US for decades, until the government eventually discovered and confirmed its toxicity and long-term effects.
> 
> There is also an enormous difference in intent.
> 
> The US intended to kill-off jungle-growth and enemy crops.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took months or years to manifest in full.
> 
> The Syrians intended to kill-off their own rebellious people.
> 
> The effects upon human beings took mere seconds after contact.
> 
> That sort of faux analogy just won't cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Why don't you prove which Syrian rebels tried to kill 'their own people' before you wander off half-cocked into a star-spangled salute to the humanitarian consequences_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about Syrian Rebels?
> 
> I was talking about the Assad Regime.
> 
> As to 'star-spangled salute to the humanitarian consequences'...
> 
> I have no clue what you are trying to get-at...
> 
> I also have the sense that YOU have no clue what you are trying to get-at, either...
> 
> So it's all good...
> 
> As to dioxins in Vietnam...
> 
> Thank you for the link to the 'dioxin' write-up...
> 
> Very informative...
> 
> Now, tell us how...
> 
> 1. this applies to the US utilization of Agent Orange in Vietnam
> 
> 2. this proves that the US knew its long-term effects would prove so harmful.
> 
> 3. this proves that the US intentionally used it as a long-term anti-personnel weapon rather than as a defoliant.
> 
> Because I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> Then again, I don't have your Rabid Anti-American Spleen to Vent, either...
> 
> Never mind dealing with you dodging some of the points raised earlier about Foreknowledge and Intent...
Click to expand...

Still haven't found proof of Assad's foreknowledge and intent to "kill his own people" with Sarin gas? Here's an easier one: Greatest purveyor of violence on the planet, Syria or USA?


----------



## georgephillip

*"Agent Orange use was always controversial*. 

"In 1964, the Federation of American Scientists objected. In 1966, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a resolution. It called for investigating its effects.

"In 1967, 17 Nobel laureates and 5,000 scientists petitioned to end its use. 

"In 1969, evidence showed birth defects and still births in mice. 

"In 1970, ecological field tests were conducted. Other studies confirmed dioxins harm. Ecocide and genocide best describe it. Human studies provided damning evidence.

"In the early 1970s, Vietnam veterans reported skin rashes, cancer, psychological symptoms, birth defects, and other health problems. A 1979 class-action lawsuit against herbicide producers was settled out of court in 1984." 

Agent Orange: The Deadly Legacy of Chemical Warfare | Global Research


----------



## gainzz

No.


----------



## Kondor3

georgephillip said:


> "..._You still haven't provided any proof of the Assad Regime's barbaric use of Sarin nerve gas against its own people, why is that?_"


First, you ask me to produce proof that the Syrian Rebels used the gas...

Next, you ask me to produce proof that the Syrian Government used the gas...

I have no proof for either...

Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that the gas attacks even happened...

Our Administration sure-as-hell hasn't produced anything concrete and substantive to show us...

Whatever in the world makes you think that I believe otherwise?

We are both dealing in hypotheticals... I, in accusing the Syrian Regime of gassing its own people, as counterpoint to your own hypothetical, in accusing the US of intentionally deploying Agent Orange as an anti-personnel weapon rather than as a defoliant...

I have been operating all along under the impression that this (_the two of us operating with hypotheticals_) was glaringly obvious...

Perhaps I was wrong...


----------



## georgephillip

Kondor3 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._You still haven't provided any proof of the Assad Regime's barbaric use of Sarin nerve gas against its own people, why is that?_"
> 
> 
> 
> First, you ask me to produce proof that the Syrian Rebels used the gas...
> 
> Next, you ask me to produce proof that the Syrian Government used the gas...
> 
> I have no proof for either...
> 
> Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that the gas attacks even happened...
> 
> Our Administration sure-as-hell hasn't produced anything concrete and substantive to show us...
> 
> Whatever in the world makes you think that I believe otherwise?
> 
> We are both dealing in hypotheticals... I, in accusing the Syrian Regime of gassing its own people, as counterpoint to your own hypothetical, in accusing the US of intentionally deploying Agent Orange as an anti-personnel weapon rather than as a defoliant...
> 
> I have been operating all along under the impression that this (_the two of us operating with hypotheticals_) was glaringly obvious...
> 
> Perhaps I was wrong...
Click to expand...

*I'm not so sure...*

"hy·po·thet·i·cal  (hp-tht-kl) also hy·po·thet·ic (-thtk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. See Synonyms at theoretical.
2.
a. Suppositional; uncertain. See Synonyms at supposed.
b. Conditional; contingent."

*My underlying hypothesis for the explanation of US strikes on Assad rest on the primacy of the US petrodollar on low levels of inflation in this country. Possible I am wrong?*


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis?
> By Larry Johnson on September 8, 2013 at 12:30 AM in Current Affairs
> Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this.
> 
> *Are you ready, Slave?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> 
> 
> It's amusing how Georgie Boy entertains himself with these forums since there is nothing else going on in his life, but one would think that he would at least make the effort to send Letters to the Editors of his local newspapers since more people would see his stuff than on these forums.  Here is one from the Los Angeles Daily News which you could answer Georgie Boy.  You can call this letter writer a Slave to Obama and then see what responses you get.  In fact, you can keep an eye out for all the Letters to the Editors in all the newspapers of Los Angeles County and have a good time spending the day answering those you feel like and millions of citizens will see your letters.
> Let&#x2019;s not forget Obama took out Osama bin Laden: Letters
> Lets not forget Obama took out Osama bin LadenRe Nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness (Letters, Sept. 3):The anti-Obama letter writer who said there is nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness regarding Syria, and dismissed the president as nothing more than a community organizer, conveniently forgets one important fact. It was Obama who made the tough decision to take out Osama bin Laden...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Watching the propaganda effort underway in the West, especially the United States, it is Deja vu all over again.
> 
> "Following the Bush blueprint of repeating the mantra of Saddam, WMDs and 9-11 to justify going to war against Iraq, the Obama playbook is using the specter of dead children, WMDS in the hands of terrorists and Iran run amuck to try to scare the American public into doing the same stupid thing.
> 
> The Saudis and the Netanyahu crowd are pushing this desperate line and the Obama Administration is going along with the charade.
> 
> "Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present, Syrias military retains tight control over the stockpiles of Chemical weapons.
> 
> "The rebels fighting the Syria Government have been kept at bay, so far. And Obamas solution? Degrade the Syrian military, which means a higher likelihood that those chemical weapons depots would fall into the hands of the Syria Islamic jihadists eager to oust Bashir Assad and create their own version Sharia rule.
> 
> "*Yeah, thats a great plan.*"
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
Click to expand...

So tell us, Georgie Boy, how many times are you going to post the same article on these forums like you found gold.  Instead of vomiting out the same stuff, start writing Letters to the Editors of all the local newspapers in the Los Angeles County and the surrounding counties giving your opinion and millions of people will be able to read you.  Or is that effort too difficult for you and it is much easier and lazier for you to just post the same old stuff you find over and over?


----------



## Connery

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia



Another source that you have used many times, "the group Human Rights Watch issued a report that said evidence strongly implies that Syrian government troops' firing of rockets containing a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb on August 21 that the U.S. said killed over 1,400 people...The report does not rely on ambiguous intercepted phone calls. It cites no shadowy intelligence gathering. Instead, HRW's experts take a close look at witness statements and photographs and video of the victims and -- above all -- the remains of the weapons that appear to have been used. The report includes a map that identifies two attack sites -- the rebel-held suburbs of Zamalka and Moadimiyeh. Each was hit with at least 4 to 8 rockets.

HRW experts have identified, from multiple pictures sent by local activists, two kinds of rockets. One kind -- 170mm or about 7 inches in diameter -- appears to have been used in all strikes on Zamalka. And another kind -- a much-larger 330 mm (about 15 inches around) -- in all the strikes on Moadimiyeh. This would suggest that two separate military units were involved, each firing a barrage of rockets."

Rights group's report offers compelling evidence of Syria chemical attack - CBS News


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Connery said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another source that you have used many times, "the group Human Rights Watch issued a report that said evidence strongly implies that Syrian government troops' firing of rockets containing a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb on August 21 that the U.S. said killed over 1,400 people...The report does not rely on ambiguous intercepted phone calls. It cites no shadowy intelligence gathering. Instead, HRW's experts take a close look at witness statements and photographs and video of the victims and -- above all -- the remains of the weapons that appear to have been used. The report includes a map that identifies two attack sites -- the rebel-held suburbs of Zamalka and Moadimiyeh. Each was hit with at least 4 to 8 rockets.
> 
> HRW experts have identified, from multiple pictures sent by local activists, two kinds of rockets. One kind -- 170mm or about 7 inches in diameter -- appears to have been used in all strikes on Zamalka. And another kind -- a much-larger 330 mm (about 15 inches around) -- in all the strikes on Moadimiyeh. This would suggest that two separate military units were involved, each firing a barrage of rockets."
> 
> Rights group's report offers compelling evidence of Syria chemical attack - CBS News
Click to expand...


They did not carry out a full investigation and they relied on the fake photos and videos and circumstantial evidence. So, I give no credence to their findings. Trash in, trash out. A real and full investigation is called for, that requires analysis of data like that recently collected by the UN in Syria. Relying on pictures sent by activists does not cut it, there are principles in place for collecting evidence in cases of this type that have to be followed for findings of these type of investigations to have credibility. Can you imagine finding a man guilty of a crime based on photos of the crime scene mailed by third parties from Syria to the US? They actually do not even make a  finding , instead stating they find compelling evidence of a Syrian strike. That is not the typical language used when they carry out investigations. You see that language when they have decided not to carry out a full investigation and want to bury a matter.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Another point about the HRW report, how did they come up with a finding of 1400 people killed? Local human rights groups who are there inside Syria  put the number killed at 300 to 400. The HRW Report is a joke, which to me is in this matter all about the fact it is a US organization.


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amusing how Georgie Boy entertains himself with these forums since there is nothing else going on in his life, but one would think that he would at least make the effort to send Letters to the Editors of his local newspapers since more people would see his stuff than on these forums.  Here is one from the Los Angeles Daily News which you could answer Georgie Boy.  You can call this letter writer a Slave to Obama and then see what responses you get.  In fact, you can keep an eye out for all the Letters to the Editors in all the newspapers of Los Angeles County and have a good time spending the day answering those you feel like and millions of citizens will see your letters.
> Let&#x2019;s not forget Obama took out Osama bin Laden: Letters
> Lets not forget Obama took out Osama bin LadenRe Nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness (Letters, Sept. 3):The anti-Obama letter writer who said there is nothing surprising about Obamas indecisiveness regarding Syria, and dismissed the president as nothing more than a community organizer, conveniently forgets one important fact. It was Obama who made the tough decision to take out Osama bin Laden...
> 
> 
> 
> "Watching the propaganda effort underway in the West, especially the United States, it is Deja vu all over again.
> 
> "Following the Bush blueprint of repeating the mantra of Saddam, WMDs and 9-11 to justify going to war against Iraq, the Obama playbook is using the specter of dead children, WMDS in the hands of terrorists and Iran run amuck to try to scare the American public into doing the same stupid thing.
> 
> The Saudis and the Netanyahu crowd are pushing this desperate line and the Obama Administration is going along with the charade.
> 
> "Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present, Syrias military retains tight control over the stockpiles of Chemical weapons.
> 
> "The rebels fighting the Syria Government have been kept at bay, so far. And Obamas solution? Degrade the Syrian military, which means a higher likelihood that those chemical weapons depots would fall into the hands of the Syria Islamic jihadists eager to oust Bashir Assad and create their own version Sharia rule.
> 
> "*Yeah, thats a great plan.*"
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us, Georgie Boy, how many times are you going to post the same article on these forums like you found gold.  Instead of vomiting out the same stuff, start writing Letters to the Editors of all the local newspapers in the Los Angeles County and the surrounding counties giving your opinion and millions of people will be able to read you.  Or is that effort too difficult for you and it is much easier and lazier for you to just post the same old stuff you find over and over?
Click to expand...

"Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this."

*What do you suppose Bibi and Bandar Bu$h have in common, Hossie?*

Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET


----------



## georgephillip

Connery said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another source that you have used many times, "the group Human Rights Watch issued a report that said evidence strongly implies that Syrian government troops' firing of rockets containing a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb on August 21 that the U.S. said killed over 1,400 people...The report does not rely on ambiguous intercepted phone calls. It cites no shadowy intelligence gathering. Instead, HRW's experts take a close look at witness statements and photographs and video of the victims and -- above all -- the remains of the weapons that appear to have been used. The report includes a map that identifies two attack sites -- the rebel-held suburbs of Zamalka and Moadimiyeh. Each was hit with at least 4 to 8 rockets.
> 
> HRW experts have identified, from multiple pictures sent by local activists, two kinds of rockets. One kind -- 170mm or about 7 inches in diameter -- appears to have been used in all strikes on Zamalka. And another kind -- a much-larger 330 mm (about 15 inches around) -- in all the strikes on Moadimiyeh. This would suggest that two separate military units were involved, each firing a barrage of rockets."
> 
> Rights group's report offers compelling evidence of Syria chemical attack - CBS News
Click to expand...

"Human Rights Watch echoes the conclusion of MIT experts that the large 330-mm rockets would have carried 50 to 60 liters of sarin.

"*That's just too much to mix up (two precursors have to be blended) without having military facilities and major protective gear.*

"The HRW report does not answer one of the most puzzling questions about the attack: Why would the Syrian government have carried it out on the very day U.N. weapons inspectors were in Damascus, just a few miles away?

"But in the absence of an answer, this report makes a compelling and persuasive read."

Rights group's report offers compelling evidence of Syria chemical attack - CBS News


----------



## Kondor3

If sarin nerve-gas was, indeed, used in the suburbs of Damascus, on August 21st...

At first glance, it seems far more likely that the Syrian Government used it, rather than the Rebels...

1. you need access to such weaponized chemicals

2. you need handling competency for such materials

3. you need activating competency for such materials

4. you need delivery systems adequate for dispersal

5. you need a motive for such an attack

My own initial thoughts on all that includes...

1. Unless those supporting the Rebels provided sarin gas from some non-Syrian source, it seems highly unlikely that the Rebels could get their hands on the stuff in the first place, and I can't think of a single foreign 'power' foolish enough to trust Rebels with sarin gas.

2. Unless there has been some defection from amongst the Syrian Army's chemical weapons -handling technical staff, it seems highly unlikely that the Rebels would have the expertise to transport and store and prepare such materials.

3. Unless there has been some defection from amongst the Syrian Army's chemical weapons -handling technical staff, it seems highly unlikely that the Rebels would have the expertise to load, prime (activate) and fire-off such materials via rocketry, and actually hit something.

4. I was not aware that any of the various and diverse Rebel factions possessed surface to surface rocket-launchers in sufficient quantity to execute a 'barrage' of special dispersal rockets armed with sarin gas.

5. The Rebels have more to lose by bombarding their own people with sarin gas than they stand to gain through some prospective and uncertain international intervention that benefits the Rebel cause(s).

-----------------

Doesn't mean I'm right about any of that, but that's what first comes to mind, when I see folks squabbling about who fired what...


----------



## MisterBeale

Connery said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia.    Russia says the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has confirmed that the videos and photos purporting to show the victims of a chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, were fabricated.    PressTV - UN rights council says Syria gas attack videos, photos fake: Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another source that you have used many times, "the group Human Rights Watch issued a report that said evidence strongly implies that Syrian government troops' firing of rockets containing a nerve agent into a Damascus suburb on August 21 that the U.S. said killed over 1,400 people...The report does not rely on ambiguous intercepted phone calls. It cites no shadowy intelligence gathering. Instead, HRW's experts take a close look at witness statements and photographs and video of the victims and -- above all -- the remains of the weapons that appear to have been used. The report includes a map that identifies two attack sites -- the rebel-held suburbs of Zamalka and Moadimiyeh. Each was hit with at least 4 to 8 rockets.
> 
> HRW experts have identified, from multiple pictures sent by local activists, two kinds of rockets. One kind -- 170mm or about 7 inches in diameter -- appears to have been used in all strikes on Zamalka. And another kind -- a much-larger 330 mm (about 15 inches around) -- in all the strikes on Moadimiyeh. This would suggest that two separate military units were involved, each firing a barrage of rockets."
> 
> Rights group's report offers compelling evidence of Syria chemical attack - CBS News
Click to expand...


Human Rights Watch is not a Reliable source of information.  They are tied in with the CFR and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.  These two organizations have an agenda that would have this nation at war with Russia, China and the rest of the world over a lie.  It's not just about the information, it's about WHO tells you the information.



> *The human rights mafia*
> One of George Soros's earliest experiments in "human rights" is a group known as Charter 77 (C77), which works closely with the Helsinki Citizens Assembly (HCA)...
> 
> 
> C77 is part of the interconnected web of the "human rights" mafia, which in turn overlaps the drug legalization lobby, as exemplified in the case of Human Rights Watch, for which Soros is a prominent financier.
> 
> 
> Human Rights Watch (HRW), and its close ally, the British Foreign Office's Amnesty International, have established themselves as a tightly coordinated international hit squad against nations which oppose free trade and globalization; they package their attacks as campaigns against "human rights" violations.
> 
> Human Rights Watch World Report 1995 launched a violent attack on those individuals and governments who share "a vision that equate economic self-interest with the common good," and it labels that outlook a "mercantilist threat" to its concept of "human rights."
> 
> 
> The secret financial network behind George Soros by William Engdahl
> The reality behind George Soros is something other than his carefully cultivated media image.... George Soros is merely the visible face of a vast and very nasty network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe. ...
> 
> Rather than use the direct powers of state to achieve crucial geopolitical goals, a secret cross-linked vast holding of private financial interests, tied to the old aristocratic oligarchy of Western Europe, was developed. It was in many ways modeled on the 17th-century British or Dutch East India Company models.
> 
> According to knowledgeable sources, the center of this Club of the Isles is the financial center of the old British Empire, the City of London. George Soros is a member of what were called in medieval days Hofjuden, or "Court Jews," who were and are run by this powerful, secretive network of aristocratic old families.
> 
> ... Soros speculates in world financial markets through his secret offshore company, Quantum Fund N.V., a wholly private investment fond called a "hedge fund." ( Hedge funds have been identified by international police agencies as the fastest-growing outlet for illegal money laundering today.)
> 
> ... Soros's Quantum Fund is registered in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, the Caribbean tax haven - so he avoids paying taxes, and also hides the nature of his investors, and what he does with their money.
> 
> By moving his legal headquarters to Curacao, Soros was able to avoid the kind of U.S. government supervision of his financial activities, that any U.S.- based investment fund must agree to, in order to operate.
> 
> The Netherland Antilles, a possession of the Kingdom of Holland, has repeatedly been cited by the International Task Force on Money Laundering of the OECD as one of the world's most important centers for laundering the illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug traffic.
> 
> Soros has also taken care that none of the 99 individual investors who form his various funds, is an American national. By U.S. securities law, a hedge fund is limited to no more than 99 investors of highly wealthy individuals, so-called "sophisticated investors."
> 
> By structuring his investment company as an offshore hedge fund, Soros avoids public scrutiny. Soros himself is not even on the board of Quantum Fund. Instead, for legal reasons, he serves as official "Investment Advisor" to Quantum Fund N.V. through his company, Soros Fund Management, of 888 Seventh Avenue, New York City.
> 
> If any demand be made of Soros to reveal the details of Quantum Fund, he can claim he is "merely its investment adviser."
> 
> ... According to knowledgeable U.S. and European investigators, Soros is part of a circle which includes Marc Rich of Zug, Switzerland and Tel Aviv, the indicted metals and commodity speculator and fugitive; Shaul Eisenberg, the secretive Israeli arms and commodities dealer; and "Dirty Rafi" Eytan - both linked to the financial side of the Israeli Mossad, and to the family of Jacob Lord Rothschild.
> 
> Understandably, Soros and the Rothschild interests prefer to keep their connection hidden far from public view, so as to obscure the powerful friends Soros can claim in the City of London, the British Foreign Office, Israel, and the U.S. financial establishment.
> 
> The myth has therefore been created that Soros is a lone financial investment "genius" who, through sheer personal brilliance in detecting shifts in markets, has become one of the world' s most successful speculators. According to those who know him and have done business with him, Soros never makes a major investment move, whether against the pound or the franc or gold, without sensitive, high-level insider information. On the board of directors of Soros's Quantum Fund N.V. is Richard Katz.
> 
> Katz is a Rothschild man who is also on the board of the London N.M. Rothschild & Sons merchant bank, and the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A. of Milan. Another Rothschild family link to Soros's Quantum Fund is Quantum board member Nils O. Taube. Taube is the partner of the London investment group, St. James Place Capital, whose major partner is Lord Rothschild.
> 
> The London Times columnist, William Lord Rees-Mogg, is also on the board of Rothschild's St. James Place Capital.
> 
> Another member of the board of Soros's Quantum Fund is the head of one of the most controversial Swiss private banks, Edgar de Picciotto, who has been called "one of the cleverest bankers in Geneva,"...
> 
> De Picciotto is a long-time friend and business associate of Edmund Safra, another Lebanese-born banker who controls the Republic Bank of New York.
> 
> Safra's Republic Bank today has been identified in U.S. investigations into Russian organized crime, as the bank involved in transferring billions of U.S. Federal Reserve notes from New York to organized crime-controlled Moscow banks, on behalf of Russian organized crime.
> 
> As well, Safra is under investigation by U.S. and Swiss authorities for laundering Turkish and Colombian drug money.
> 
> ...George Soros's relation to the secretive international Rothschild finance circle represents no ordinary or casual banking connection. It goes a long way toward explaining the extraordinary success of a mere private speculator, and Soros's uncanny ability to "gamble right" so many times in such high-risk markets.
> 
> Soros has access to the "insider track" in some of the most important government and private channels in the world.
> 
> Since the Second World War, the legendary Rothschild finance family, at the heart of the financial apparatus of the Club of the Isles, has gone to great lengths to mislead, to create for itself a public aura of insignificance, behind which stands one of the world's most powerful and murkiest financial combinations. The family has spent significant sums cultivating a public image as a family of wealthy but quiet "gentlemen," ...
> 
> Among other things, they have wished to become known, since 1948, as being devoted to the cause of the new state of Israel, playing on the world's outrage over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews during World War II. Indeed, since British Foreign secretary Arthur Balfour wrote his famous November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild expressing official British government backing for establishment in Palestine of a national homeland for the Jews, the Rothschilds have been intimately involved in the creation of Israel.
> 
> It is no surprise, therefore, to find that today Soros and Rothschild have ties to Israeli intelligence, as well as to British and American.
> 
> But behind their public facade as a family donating money for useful projects such as planting trees in the deserts of Israel, N.M. Rothschild of London is at the center of various intelligence operations ...
> 
> N.M. Rothschild is considered by City of London insiders to be one of the most influential components of that part of the British Intelligence establishment tied to the Thatcher "free market" wing of the Tory Party. Rothschild & Sons made huge sums managing for Thatcher the privatization of billions of dollars of British state industry holdings during the 1980s, and today, for John Major's government.
> 
> As well, Rothschilds is at the very heart of the world gold trade, being the bank at which, twice daily, the London Gold Fix is struck by a group of the five most influential gold trade banks. Gold forms a major part of the economy of drug dealings globally.
> 
> But N.M. Rothschild & Sons is also implicated in some of the filthiest drugs-for-weapons secret intelligence operations. Because it is well-connected to the highest levels of the British Intelligence establishment, Rothschilds managed to evade prominent mention of its complicity in one of the more sordid covert intelligence networks, that of BCCI (Bank of Commerce and Credit International).
> 
> Rothschilds was at the heart of the vast international web of money-laundering banks used during the 1970s and 1980s, by Britain's MI-6 and the network of Lt. Col. Oliver North and Vice President George Bush, to finance such projects as the Nicaraguan Contras.
> 
> On June 8, 1993, the chairman of the Banking Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Henry Gonzalez of Texas, made an extraordinary speech in which he charged that the U.S. government, under the Bush and Reagan administrations, had systematically refused to prosecute BCCI, and that the Department of Justice had repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congressional investigations into the BCCI scandal, as well as what Gonzalez said was the intimately related scandal of the Atlanta, Ga. branch of Banca Nationale del Lavoro (BNL), which was alleged to have made billions of dollars in loans from the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein, just prior to the Gulf War of 1 990-91. ...
> 
> But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild group tied to George Soros was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI.
> 
> ... According to these reports, among Soros's silent investors are - as mentioned above - the reclusive fugitive metals and oil trader. Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland, and Israeli arms merchant Shaul Eisenberg, who has been identified as a decades-long member of lsraeli Mossad intelligence, and who functions as a major arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East.



http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild06.htm


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Watching the propaganda effort underway in the West, especially the United States, it is Deja vu all over again.
> 
> "Following the Bush blueprint of repeating the mantra of Saddam, WMDs and 9-11 to justify going to war against Iraq, the Obama playbook is using the specter of dead children, WMDS in the hands of terrorists and Iran run amuck to try to scare the American public into doing the same stupid thing.
> 
> The Saudis and the Netanyahu crowd are pushing this desperate line and the Obama Administration is going along with the charade.
> 
> "Obama repeats this nonsense without pausing to acknowledge the absurd inconsistencies in his position. Take the WMD issue. At present, Syrias military retains tight control over the stockpiles of Chemical weapons.
> 
> "The rebels fighting the Syria Government have been kept at bay, so far. And Obamas solution? Degrade the Syrian military, which means a higher likelihood that those chemical weapons depots would fall into the hands of the Syria Islamic jihadists eager to oust Bashir Assad and create their own version Sharia rule.
> 
> "*Yeah, thats a great plan.*"
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, Georgie Boy, how many times are you going to post the same article on these forums like you found gold.  Instead of vomiting out the same stuff, start writing Letters to the Editors of all the local newspapers in the Los Angeles County and the surrounding counties giving your opinion and millions of people will be able to read you.  Or is that effort too difficult for you and it is much easier and lazier for you to just post the same old stuff you find over and over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this."
> 
> *What do you suppose Bibi and Bandar Bu$h have in common, Hossie?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
Click to expand...

Probably their commonality is not having to squat to pee.


----------



## High_Gravity

if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?


----------



## MisterBeale

High_Gravity said:


> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?



Because they have a limited supply.  They are being supplied only the amount needed to make it appear that the Syrian regime is the culprit so that the US and NATO can intervene.

How come all these chemical attacks never seem to injure the FSA?  They always manage to only kill civilians?  Because the Syrian army are like the Keystone cops, good at repelling the rebels with conventional weapons but terrible with so called chemical weapons?


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?



But then again, given Assad has a fairly well equipped Army and Air Force, what did he have to gain by using Sarin gas on people and thereby bring down the wrath of the international community upon himself?   I just dont see him as being that dumb.

So I have to ask who had the most to gain by using Sarin gas?  Assad?  Or the rebels who could convince the international community that it was Assad?

How would the rebels get it?  Who knows?  The U.K. apparently furnished Syria with the raw materials and know how.   Do we know who has that information?  There is still considerable suspicion that Saddam Hussein sent his chemical stuff to Syria before the impending invasion in 2003 but no absolute proof of that.  We are dealing with Islamic fundamentalists and it is feasible that some would infiltrate the Syrian government and might have been able to steal something.  I mean, can you tell by looking which side somebody belongs to over there?

Given the lack of conclusive proof of who used what on who, it is understandable that the American people, with a growing majority, have little stomach for getting us embroiled in that conflict.   Most especially when the President has made it clear that we just plan to blow something up and then declare victory when everybody knows that will change nothing and could escalate into something worse.

No easy answers on this one.


----------



## Hossfly

MisterBeale said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they have a limited supply.  They are being supplied only the amount needed to make it appear that the Syrian regime is the culprit so that the US and NATO can intervene.
> 
> How come all these chemical attacks never seem to injure the FSA?  They always manage to only kill civilians?  Because the Syrian army are like the Keystone cops, good at repelling the rebels with conventional weapons but terrible with so called chemical weapons?
Click to expand...

Good point! This could be tied in with the 9/11 conspiracy theories.


----------



## Kondor3

MisterBeale said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they have a limited supply.  They are being supplied only the amount needed to make it appear that the Syrian regime is the culprit so that the US and NATO can intervene.
> 
> How come all these chemical attacks never seem to injure the FSA?  They always manage to only kill civilians?  Because the Syrian army are like the Keystone cops, good at repelling the rebels with conventional weapons but terrible with so called chemical weapons?
Click to expand...

Too much of a stretch, I fear...

Who is supplying them?

What is the conduit through which they are passing?

Where are they getting the technical expertise to handle and target and fire those munitions?

Is there any substantive evidence to support such speculation?


----------



## MisterBeale

*Chemical attack was Syria rebel provocation, former hostages say*
*http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/*
Published time: September 10, 2013 03:24
Edited time: September 11, 2013 09:36 
Although it's a circumstantial article, it's still nearly as interesting as the Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh piece.  Certainly a lot more reliable than such foolishness as "Human Rights Watch" & "Doctors Without Borders" nonsense. 


> In a number of interviews to European news outlets, the former hostages - Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin and Italian journalist Domenico Quiric - said they overheard an English-language Skype conversation between their captors and other men which suggested it was rebel forces, not the government, that used chemical weapons on Syrias civilian population in an August 21 attack near Damascus.
> 
> It is a moral duty to say this. The government of Bashar al-Assad did not use sarin gas or other types of gas in the outskirts of Damascus, Piccinin said during an interview with Belgium's RTL radio station.
> 
> Piccinin stressed that while being held captive, he and fellow prisoner Quirico were secluded from the outside world and had no idea that chemical weapons were deployed. But the conversation which both men overheard suggested that the use of the weapons was a strategic move by the opposition, aimed at getting the West to intervene.
> 
> "In this conversation, they said that the gas attack on two neighborhoods of Damascus was launched by the rebels as a provocation to lead the West to intervene militarily, Quirico told Italys La Stampa. "We were unaware of everything that was going on during our detention in Syria, and therefore also with the gas attack in Damascus."
> 
> While stating that the rebels most likely exaggerated the accidents death toll, the Italian journalist stressed that he could not vouch whether the conversation was based on real facts." However, he said that one of the three people in the alleged conversation identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general, La Stampa reported.
> 
> Based on what both men have learned, Peccinin told RTL that it would be insane and suicidal for the West to support these people.
> 
> It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012," Piccinin added.



Syria: Assad not Responsible for Ghouta Gas Attack, Says Freed Hostage Pierre Piccinin 
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/504735/20130909/syria-chemical-attack-assad-rebels-blame-hostage.htm



> A Belgian writer held hostage for five months in Syria has said that his own rebel captors denied that President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the Ghouta massacre.
> 
> Pierre Piccinin said that he and fellow hostage Domenico Quirico, an Italian war reporter, heard their jailers talking about the chemical weapon attack and saying that Assad was not to blame.
> 
> Quirico confirmed to La Stampa newspaper that they had eavesdropped such a conversation through a closed door but added that he had no evidence to substantiate what he heard.
> 
> Piccinin said the captives became desperate when they heard that the US was planning to launch a punitive attack against the regime over the gas attack in the Damascus suburb.
> 
> "It wasn't the government of Bashar al-Assad that used sarin gas or any other gas in Ghouta," Piccinin told Belgian RTL radio after he was released.
> 
> "We are sure about this because we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I've been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012," Piccinin added.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then again, given Assad has a fairly well equipped Army and Air Force, what did he have to gain by using Sarin gas on people and thereby bring down the wrath of the international community upon himself?   I just dont see him as being that dumb.
> 
> So I have to ask who had the most to gain by using Sarin gas?  Assad?  Or the rebels who could convince the international community that it was Assad?
> 
> How would the rebels get it?  Who knows?  The U.K. apparently furnished Syria with the raw materials and know how.   Do we know who has that information?  There is still considerable suspicion that Saddam Hussein sent his chemical stuff to Syria before the impending invasion in 2003 but no absolute proof of that.  We are dealing with Islamic fundamentalists and it is feasible that some would infiltrate the Syrian government and might have been able to steal something.  I mean, can you tell by looking which side somebody belongs to over there?
> 
> Given the lack of conclusive proof of who used what on who, it is understandable that the American people, with a growing majority, have little stomach for getting us embroiled in that conflict.   Most especially when the President has made it clear that we just plan to blow something up and then declare victory when everybody knows that will change nothing and could escalate into something worse.
> 
> No easy answers on this one.
Click to expand...


Its hard to say, chemical weapons are way better at clearing an area than regular bombs,  mortars, bunker busters etc etc Saddam used them against the Kurds in the 80s when he also had a superior force, and there are reports of the Russians using them against Chechnya which has no standing Army to speak of.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then again, given Assad has a fairly well equipped Army and Air Force, what did he have to gain by using Sarin gas on people and thereby bring down the wrath of the international community upon himself?   I just dont see him as being that dumb.
> 
> So I have to ask who had the most to gain by using Sarin gas?  Assad?  Or the rebels who could convince the international community that it was Assad?
> 
> How would the rebels get it?  Who knows?  The U.K. apparently furnished Syria with the raw materials and know how.   Do we know who has that information?  There is still considerable suspicion that Saddam Hussein sent his chemical stuff to Syria before the impending invasion in 2003 but no absolute proof of that.  We are dealing with Islamic fundamentalists and it is feasible that some would infiltrate the Syrian government and might have been able to steal something.  I mean, can you tell by looking which side somebody belongs to over there?
> 
> Given the lack of conclusive proof of who used what on who, it is understandable that the American people, with a growing majority, have little stomach for getting us embroiled in that conflict.   Most especially when the President has made it clear that we just plan to blow something up and then declare victory when everybody knows that will change nothing and could escalate into something worse.
> 
> No easy answers on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to say, chemical weapons are way better at clearing an area than regular bombs,  mortars, bunker busters etc etc Saddam used them against the Kurds in the 80s when he also had a superior force, and there are reports of the Russians using them against Chechnya which has no standing Army to speak of.
Click to expand...


Agreed.   But because we don't know with any high confidence WHO used the stuff, if there was no other good reason, that is sufficient reason for me to not want us firing cruise missiles into Syria and escalating things.  Both sides are no doubt guilty of things we consider atrocities.  But I have this weird concept that no matter what else somebody might be guilty of, they still should be hung for a crime they actually committed.


----------



## High_Gravity

If I were a rebel leader and had chemicals I would have Assad in a box by now and Damascus a toxic wasteland, just saying.


----------



## Kondor3

MisterBeale said:


> "..._Chemical attack was Syria rebel provocation, former hostages say_..."


A couple of frightened former captives overheard a Skype conversation, that that is considered prima facie evidence of Rebel use of sarin gas rather than the government?

And from "RT", no less; a Russian news source, under circumstances wherein the Russians have been fighting a losing battle to attempt to portray their Syrian Regime client as the wronged innocent, as a tactic for deflecting attack?

I have two words for that...

Puh-leeze !

Now... if you had told us (a) the captives had and served-up a copy of the Skype conversation, and (b) the conversation involved authoritative sources, and (c) it was reported by a more neutral source, then, maybe the case would have been stronger.

At this juncture, though... not-so-much.


----------



## MisterBeale

Kondor3 said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the rebels have WMD why aren't they burning Damascus to the ground and using Assad as a pinata by now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they have a limited supply.  They are being supplied only the amount needed to make it appear that the Syrian regime is the culprit so that the US and NATO can intervene.
> 
> How come all these chemical attacks never seem to injure the FSA?  They always manage to only kill civilians?  Because the Syrian army are like the Keystone cops, good at repelling the rebels with conventional weapons but terrible with so called chemical weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too much of a stretch, I fear...
> 
> Who is supplying them?
> 
> What is the conduit through which they are passing?
> 
> Where are they getting the technical expertise to handle and target and fire those munitions?
> 
> Is there any substantive evidence to support such speculation?
Click to expand...


Too much of a stretch to believe that Assad would use them when he is already winning, knowing that would give NATO and the US an excuse to intervene?  Yeah, I agree, that is WAY out there.  I don't believe that either.

Who is supplying the Chemical weapons?  

Well now, if you were really interested, I suppose you would read all the posts that were on these forums, I have posted it, and so have other members already.  It's pretty common knowledge.  It's suspected that both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have supplied them to the rebels via Georgia, Turkey or Jordan.  They have not given them adequate training, and as such, many of the rebels have themselves fallen victim to their own inept handling of the weapons.  Why do you think the Russians KNOW it was a false flag?  Why do you think they aren't on board with the US pounding Assad for doing such an allegedly criminal act?  Because since the very beginning this was a nasty business that has been carried on by the covert intelligence agencies by Israel, Britain, and the U.S.

The conduit through which they are passing?  

Already answered.  However, Syria is beset on all sides by ways in which the US and it's allies could supply the FSA and terrorist networks with chemical weapons.  Northern Iraq is controlled by US allies the PKK, Turkey, Jordan.  Really, is that honestly a question?

Where are they getting the technical expertise to handle and target and fire those munitions?  

Again, if you had bothered to read the Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh piece which was the first, and to date, the only real journalist breaking story on this event, with journalists ON THE GROUND, actually interviewing and covering the story, you would see, THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY "expertise" it was a learn as you go type of operation.  They got just the minimal training, field manuals, that type of stuff.

Is there any substantive evidence to support such speculation?

Nope.  Is there any in the paradigm we are presented from the idiot box or through MSM.  Nope.  

So what is the difference?

One paradigm seeks our belief which will lead our country to WAR.  The other, leads us to logically conclude the leader of the other nation would not provoke the most militarily powerful nation on earth to destroy him.

Which makes more sense to you?


----------



## MisterBeale

High_Gravity said:


> If I were a rebel leader and had chemicals I would have Assad in a box by now and Damascus a toxic wasteland, just saying.



The puppet masters that are funding you wouldn't give you enough chemical weapons to clean your bathroom.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> If I were a rebel leader and had chemicals I would have Assad in a box by now and Damascus a toxic wasteland, just saying.



Would you?   And thereby tip your hand that it was you who used banned substances and destroy any chance to gain the sympathy and support of the international community?  To bring wrath down upon yourself?  If Assad is no fool, then probably neither are the rebel leaders.

No, I think if it was indeed the rebels who used such weapons, they would do it in a way--against their own--so as to frame Assad and generate sympathy and support for themselves.


----------



## Kondor3

MisterBeale said:


> "..._Which makes more sense to you?_"



Of the two choices that you serve-up, your choice, of course.

Trouble is, those are not the only two choices.

But you already knew that, in advance of asking the question, most likely.


----------



## High_Gravity

MisterBeale said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were a rebel leader and had chemicals I would have Assad in a box by now and Damascus a toxic wasteland, just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The puppet masters that are funding you wouldn't give you enough chemical weapons to clean your bathroom.
Click to expand...


How the fuck would you know?


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were a rebel leader and had chemicals I would have Assad in a box by now and Damascus a toxic wasteland, just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you?   And thereby tip your hand that it was you who used banned substances and destroy any chance to gain the sympathy and support of the international community?  To bring wrath down upon yourself?  If Assad is no fool, then probably neither are the rebel leaders.
> 
> No, I think if it was indeed the rebels who used such weapons, they would do it in a way--against their own--so as to frame Assad and generate sympathy and support for themselves.
Click to expand...


That is a possibility but launching chemical weapons is not easy, if the rebels have these capabilities thats not a good sign for Assad either way.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were a rebel leader and had chemicals I would have Assad in a box by now and Damascus a toxic wasteland, just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you?   And thereby tip your hand that it was you who used banned substances and destroy any chance to gain the sympathy and support of the international community?  To bring wrath down upon yourself?  If Assad is no fool, then probably neither are the rebel leaders.
> 
> No, I think if it was indeed the rebels who used such weapons, they would do it in a way--against their own--so as to frame Assad and generate sympathy and support for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a possibility but launching chemical weapons is not easy, if the rebels have these capabilities thats not a good sign for Assad either way.
Click to expand...


They didn't have to have much capability.  Just maybe one canister smuggled out of a stockpile.  All they had to do was use it once or twice in a limited manner and point to Assad as the culprit.  And voila!!!  The international community sides with the rebels and gives them all manner of support while condemning Assad.

If one is crafty enough, he may not even have to win a single battle in order to win a war.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you?   And thereby tip your hand that it was you who used banned substances and destroy any chance to gain the sympathy and support of the international community?  To bring wrath down upon yourself?  If Assad is no fool, then probably neither are the rebel leaders.
> 
> No, I think if it was indeed the rebels who used such weapons, they would do it in a way--against their own--so as to frame Assad and generate sympathy and support for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a possibility but launching chemical weapons is not easy, if the rebels have these capabilities thats not a good sign for Assad either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't have to have much capability.  Just maybe one canister smuggled out of a stockpile.  All they had to do was use it once or twice in a limited manner and point to Assad as the culprit.  And voila!!!  The international community sides with the rebels and gives them all manner of support while condemning Assad.
> 
> If one is crafty enough, he may not even have to win a single battle in order to win a war.
Click to expand...


Don't you have to have chemical weapons experts to handle these materials to launch them successfully? I'm not an expert but when I was in the Military we had to do Chem warfare training every year, and it was always a professional who taught the class. If the people handling these things are amateurs it will fuck everything up big time.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a possibility but launching chemical weapons is not easy, if the rebels have these capabilities thats not a good sign for Assad either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't have to have much capability.  Just maybe one canister smuggled out of a stockpile.  All they had to do was use it once or twice in a limited manner and point to Assad as the culprit.  And voila!!!  The international community sides with the rebels and gives them all manner of support while condemning Assad.
> 
> If one is crafty enough, he may not even have to win a single battle in order to win a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you have to have chemical weapons experts to handle these materials to launch them successfully? I'm not an expert but when I was in the Military we had to do Chem warfare training every year, and it was always a professional who taught the class. If the people handling these things are amateurs it will fuck everything up big time.
Click to expand...


But the weapons did not have to be 'launched'.  Sarin gas was released in an area where many civilians happened to be at the time.  That's the way terrorists do it.  The terrorists generally are willing to put themselves at risk when they do stuff like that so safety and/or efficiency would not be a primary concern.  That's why militant Islamists will strap bombs on the bodies of kids and send them into areas to blow themselves up.  Or fly airplanes into buildings ensuring their certain death.   It is possible that just such a person was among the dead following the Sarin gas release in Syria.  And who would ever know that other than those who sent him to die for Allah?


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't have to have much capability.  Just maybe one canister smuggled out of a stockpile.  All they had to do was use it once or twice in a limited manner and point to Assad as the culprit.  And voila!!!  The international community sides with the rebels and gives them all manner of support while condemning Assad.
> 
> If one is crafty enough, he may not even have to win a single battle in order to win a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have to have chemical weapons experts to handle these materials to launch them successfully? I'm not an expert but when I was in the Military we had to do Chem warfare training every year, and it was always a professional who taught the class. If the people handling these things are amateurs it will fuck everything up big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the weapons did not have to be 'launched'.  Sarin gas was released in an area where many civilians happened to be at the time.  That's the way terrorists do it.  The terrorists generally are willing to put themselves at risk when they do stuff like that so safety and/or efficiency would not be a primary concern.  That's why militant Islamists will strap bombs on the bodies of kids and send them into areas to blow themselves up.  Or fly airplanes into buildings ensuring their certain death.   It is possible that just such a person was among the dead following the Sarin gas release in Syria.  And who would ever know that other than those who sent him to die for Allah?
Click to expand...


Just releasing chemicals into an area like that would most definently kill the people administering them too, I would never do that.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have to have chemical weapons experts to handle these materials to launch them successfully? I'm not an expert but when I was in the Military we had to do Chem warfare training every year, and it was always a professional who taught the class. If the people handling these things are amateurs it will fuck everything up big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the weapons did not have to be 'launched'.  Sarin gas was released in an area where many civilians happened to be at the time.  That's the way terrorists do it.  The terrorists generally are willing to put themselves at risk when they do stuff like that so safety and/or efficiency would not be a primary concern.  That's why militant Islamists will strap bombs on the bodies of kids and send them into areas to blow themselves up.  Or fly airplanes into buildings ensuring their certain death.   It is possible that just such a person was among the dead following the Sarin gas release in Syria.  And who would ever know that other than those who sent him to die for Allah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just releasing chemicals into an area like that would most definently kill the people administering them too, I would never do that.
Click to expand...


No you wouldn't.  But you also are not a radicalized militant Islamist who has been brainwashed into believing that he will be whisked immediately to heaven and enjoy many virgins if he gloriously gives his life in obedience and service to Allah.


----------



## Kondor3

What a minute...

Suddenly we're talking about Manual Release of sarin gas, rather than delivery via rocketry?

I have seen (on this board) a lot of discussion about the forensics of the delivery-rockets (x mm or x cm in diameter) and how the UN weapons team was evaluating same...

And, when it comes to brainwashed Jihadists seeking martyrdom, and being willing to die for Allah, et al...

I have little trouble believing that someone could work up the insanity or courage to kill themselves as a human bomb... that's over in a nanoscecond after the flash...

But I'm having one helluva lot of trouble believing that even your more fanatical Jidhadists would willingly condemn themselves to the agony of Sarin Gas exposure, which might very well drag-on for some time before they died...

Not sure I'm on solid ground with that, but that was my first common-sense reaction to the idea...


----------



## Foxfyre

Kondor3 said:


> What a minute...
> 
> Suddenly we're talking about Manual Release of sarin gas, rather than delivery via rocketry?
> 
> I have seen (on this board) a lot of discussion about the forensics of the delivery-rockets (x mm or x cm in diameter) and how the UN weapons team was evaluating same...
> 
> And, when it comes to brainwashed Jihadists seeking martyrdom, and being willing to die for Allah, et al...
> 
> I have little trouble believing that someone could work up the insanity or courage to kill themselves as a human bomb... that's over in a nanoscecond after the flash...
> 
> But I'm having one helluva lot of trouble believing that even your more fanatical Jidhadists would willingly condemn themselves to the agony of Sarin Gas exposure, which might very well drag-on for some time before they died...
> 
> Not sure I'm on solid ground with that, but that was my first common-sense reaction to the idea...



Well given that common sense is a rare commodity on this board and others like it, you definitely get my applause with that.    Just using common sense, HG has been giving me the best debate I've had with anybody in awhile and I've enjoyed it a lot.  If I was grading the two of us in a formal debate, I'm not sure which one of us I would be giving the edge to on points.  And I'm biased.  

But then again, there is NO hope of survival if you are flying an airliner into a tall building.  There is NO hope of survival if you pull the trigger on a massive bomb strapped to your body.   But there is the unpleasant anticipation of horror, flames, feeling your body disintegrate even if for only a moment which is why normal people won't do something like that.  But nobody has convinced me that militant jihadists are normal people.

Our American warriors have many times faced odds with the probability of death quite high, but there is always the glimmer of hope that some kind of out or rescue will be provided along with success of the mission.  We have not asked our people to do certain suicide for God, country, or the American way.

But whether determined to die for the glory of Allah and promised reward or whether there is the glimmer of hope that the terrorist will be able to carry out a mission of releasing Sarin gas and escaping the consequences of that, who knows.  I have no doubt there are jihadists willing to do that.


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, Georgie Boy, how many times are you going to post the same article on these forums like you found gold.  Instead of vomiting out the same stuff, start writing Letters to the Editors of all the local newspapers in the Los Angeles County and the surrounding counties giving your opinion and millions of people will be able to read you.  Or is that effort too difficult for you and it is much easier and lazier for you to just post the same old stuff you find over and over?
> 
> 
> 
> "Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this."
> 
> *What do you suppose Bibi and Bandar Bu$h have in common, Hossie?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably their commonality is not having to squat to pee.
Click to expand...

*More likely it's their fear of Iran and Hezbollah.*

"Netanyahu, as the representative of the Likud faction in Israel, and the Saudis are terrified of Iran. They are not concerned at all about the fact that the U.S. policy in Iraq, specifically the dismantling of the Saddam Hussein regime, created the opening for the expansion of Iranian influence in the region. 

"Netanyahu worries that Hezbollah, a key ally of Iran, sits to its immediate north and has developed a formidable military force. This is not the Hezbollah of 1980. 

"They are strong, popular and demonstrate the organizational prowess of a nation state. In many respects, they are a state within the confines of Lebanon.

"Despite Irans sometimes heated, bellicose rhetorical jabs at Israel, it is not in a position to invade. And it is not in a position to launch an effective strategic missile strike on Israel. If Tehran and its mullahs attempted such a foolhardy strike much of Iran would be immolated by Israeli nuclear weapons."

Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a minute...
> 
> Suddenly we're talking about Manual Release of sarin gas, rather than delivery via rocketry?
> 
> I have seen (on this board) a lot of discussion about the forensics of the delivery-rockets (x mm or x cm in diameter) and how the UN weapons team was evaluating same...
> 
> And, when it comes to brainwashed Jihadists seeking martyrdom, and being willing to die for Allah, et al...
> 
> I have little trouble believing that someone could work up the insanity or courage to kill themselves as a human bomb... that's over in a nanoscecond after the flash...
> 
> But I'm having one helluva lot of trouble believing that even your more fanatical Jidhadists would willingly condemn themselves to the agony of Sarin Gas exposure, which might very well drag-on for some time before they died...
> 
> Not sure I'm on solid ground with that, but that was my first common-sense reaction to the idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well given that common sense is a rare commodity on this board and others like it, you definitely get my applause with that.    Just using common sense, HG has been giving me the best debate I've had with anybody in awhile and I've enjoyed it a lot.  If I was grading the two of us in a formal debate, I'm not sure which one of us I would be giving the edge to on points.  And I'm biased.
> 
> But then again, there is NO hope of survival if you are flying an airliner into a tall building.  There is NO hope of survival if you pull the trigger on a massive bomb strapped to your body.   But there is the unpleasant anticipation of horror, flames, feeling your body disintegrate even if for only a moment which is why normal people won't do something like that.  But nobody has convinced me that militant jihadists are normal people.
> 
> Our American warriors have many times faced odds with the probability of death quite high, but there is always the glimmer of hope that some kind of out or rescue will be provided along with success of the mission.  We have not asked our people to do certain suicide for God, country, or the American way.
> 
> But whether determined to die for the glory of Allah and promised reward or whether there is the glimmer of hope that the terrorist will be able to carry out a mission of releasing Sarin gas and escaping the consequences of that, who knows.  I have no doubt there are jihadists willing to do that.
Click to expand...


You could deploy the chemicals, than put a gun in your mouth I guess.


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this."
> 
> *What do you suppose Bibi and Bandar Bu$h have in common, Hossie?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> 
> 
> Probably their commonality is not having to squat to pee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More likely it's their fear of Iran and Hezbollah.*
> 
> "Netanyahu, as the representative of the Likud faction in Israel, and the Saudis are terrified of Iran. They are not concerned at all about the fact that the U.S. policy in Iraq, specifically the dismantling of the Saddam Hussein regime, created the opening for the expansion of Iranian influence in the region.
> 
> "Netanyahu worries that Hezbollah, a key ally of Iran, sits to its immediate north and has developed a formidable military force. This is not the Hezbollah of 1980.
> 
> "They are strong, popular and demonstrate the organizational prowess of a nation state. In many respects, they are a state within the confines of Lebanon.
> 
> "Despite Irans sometimes heated, bellicose rhetorical jabs at Israel, it is not in a position to invade. And it is not in a position to launch an effective strategic missile strike on Israel. If Tehran and its mullahs attempted such a foolhardy strike much of Iran would be immolated by Israeli nuclear weapons."
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
Click to expand...

When are you going to realize, George, that Netanyahu has The Big Guy on his side? Nothing's going to happen to Israel as you would wish. You're pissing into the wind.


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Strange bedfellows indeed. Bibi Netanyahu, with the full throated backing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee, and the Saudis have mounted an impressive, coordinated effort to push the United States into moving against Syria as a means of weakening Iran. Important to note, key Israeli intelligence and military leaders are against this."
> 
> *What do you suppose Bibi and Bandar Bu$h have in common, Hossie?*
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
> 
> 
> 
> Probably their commonality is not having to squat to pee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More likely it's their fear of Iran and Hezbollah.*
> 
> "Netanyahu, as the representative of the Likud faction in Israel, and the Saudis are terrified of Iran. They are not concerned at all about the fact that the U.S. policy in Iraq, specifically the dismantling of the Saddam Hussein regime, created the opening for the expansion of Iranian influence in the region.
> 
> "Netanyahu worries that Hezbollah, a key ally of Iran, sits to its immediate north and has developed a formidable military force. This is not the Hezbollah of 1980.
> 
> "They are strong, popular and demonstrate the organizational prowess of a nation state. In many respects, they are a state within the confines of Lebanon.
> 
> "Despite Irans sometimes heated, bellicose rhetorical jabs at Israel, it is not in a position to invade. And it is not in a position to launch an effective strategic missile strike on Israel. If Tehran and its mullahs attempted such a foolhardy strike much of Iran would be immolated by Israeli nuclear weapons."
> 
> Are You Ready to Go to War for Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis? : NO QUARTER USA NET
Click to expand...

You really are pathetic, Georgie Boy.  You find a site and you beat it to death.  Maybe you are delusional enough to think the viewers are going to read the same stuff you keep on vomiting out.  Meanwhile, forget about squatting.  Maybe some day you will be doing wudu every time you go to the toilet because you wouldn't want the jinns to get up your orifices.  By the way, what do Georgie Boy and Calypso Louis Farrakhan have in common?  As an aside, it's a shame that Georgie Boy didn't put as much effort into his private life as he does to blame the Jews and Israel on the different forums.


----------



## Camp

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a minute...
> 
> Suddenly we're talking about Manual Release of sarin gas, rather than delivery via rocketry?
> 
> I have seen (on this board) a lot of discussion about the forensics of the delivery-rockets (x mm or x cm in diameter) and how the UN weapons team was evaluating same...
> 
> And, when it comes to brainwashed Jihadists seeking martyrdom, and being willing to die for Allah, et al...
> 
> I have little trouble believing that someone could work up the insanity or courage to kill themselves as a human bomb... that's over in a nanoscecond after the flash...
> 
> But I'm having one helluva lot of trouble believing that even your more fanatical Jidhadists would willingly condemn themselves to the agony of Sarin Gas exposure, which might very well drag-on for some time before they died...
> 
> Not sure I'm on solid ground with that, but that was my first common-sense reaction to the idea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well given that common sense is a rare commodity on this board and others like it, you definitely get my applause with that.    Just using common sense, HG has been giving me the best debate I've had with anybody in awhile and I've enjoyed it a lot.  If I was grading the two of us in a formal debate, I'm not sure which one of us I would be giving the edge to on points.  And I'm biased.
> 
> But then again, there is NO hope of survival if you are flying an airliner into a tall building.  There is NO hope of survival if you pull the trigger on a massive bomb strapped to your body.   But there is the unpleasant anticipation of horror, flames, feeling your body disintegrate even if for only a moment which is why normal people won't do something like that.  But nobody has convinced me that militant jihadists are normal people.
> 
> Our American warriors have many times faced odds with the probability of death quite high, but there is always the glimmer of hope that some kind of out or rescue will be provided along with success of the mission.  We have not asked our people to do certain suicide for God, country, or the American way.
> 
> But whether determined to die for the glory of Allah and promised reward or whether there is the glimmer of hope that the terrorist will be able to carry out a mission of releasing Sarin gas and escaping the consequences of that, who knows.  I have no doubt there are jihadists willing to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could deploy the chemicals, than put a gun in your mouth I guess.
Click to expand...


Or, you could give them gas masks and "special clothing" and tell them they would be just fine.


----------



## Kondor3

Foxfyre said:


> "...Well given that common sense is a rare commodity..."


As a follow-up to this, that occurred to me later, it seems sensible to mention that my own focus, earlier in this exchange, was not upon likelihood of survival; certain death was presumed on my part under all of those examples; rather, my focus was upon how LONG it took to die and the AGONY that a Gas victim would experience, as the primary deterrent to talking your average Jihadist into delivering by hand. A lot of folks can deal with dying; most just abhor the idea of taking a long time to do it, and writhing in sheets of blinding, ungodly agony while they're doing it. Hope that helps to clarify things a bit.


----------



## Kondor3

Camp said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You could deploy the chemicals, than put a gun in your mouth I guess. _
Click to expand...


Yeah, but the effects of sarin begin instantaneously upon contact, if I correctly remember my very modest CBR seminars/clinicals in Basic Training, long ago, and I'm not sure they'd have time to pull their gun before they fell to the ground already near-paralyzed.



> "..._Or, you could give them gas masks and "special clothing" and tell them they would be just fine._



My guess is that even so equipped, amateurs like that would turn-up dead by the dozens, and I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in the confused tangle of data coming our way.


----------



## Connery

Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.

Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You could deploy the chemicals, than put a gun in your mouth I guess. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the effects of sarin begin instantaneously upon contact, if I correctly remember my very modest CBR seminars/clinicals in Basic Training, long ago, and I'm not sure they'd have time to pull their gun before they fell to the ground already near-paralyzed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Or, you could give them gas masks and "special clothing" and tell them they would be just fine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is that even so equipped, amateurs like that would turn-up dead by the dozens, and I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in the confused tangle of data coming our way.
Click to expand...

If you breathe in Sarin you have 9 seconds to seek forgiveness.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Connery said:


> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters



So, Putin did in days, what Obama failed at for months....


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Connery said:


> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters



When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.


----------



## skye

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
Click to expand...




It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!

Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.

Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?


----------



## Hossfly

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
Click to expand...

We all realize that you would like to see Israel destroyed by your friends, Frau Sherri, and perhaps the only thing holding your friends back is knowing what  Israel has in its arsenal. Syria gave up their nukes? I think they had a little nudge from Israel, wot?  And the treaty doesn't mean you give up your weapons. It means you agree not to use them.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

skye said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!
> 
> Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.
> 
> Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?
Click to expand...


I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all realize that you would like to see Israel destroyed by your friends, Frau Sherri, and perhaps the only thing holding your friends back is knowing what  Israel has in its arsenal. Syria gave up their nukes? I think they had a little nudge from Israel, wot?  And the treaty doesn't mean you give up your weapons. It means you agree not to use them.
Click to expand...


"Currently 189 states are party to the CWC.[1] Of the seven United Nations Member States that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria)."

*When might we expect Israel's ratification, before or after regime change in Tehran?*

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## skye

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!
> 
> Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.
> 
> Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
Click to expand...




You as usual are deliberately twisting what was said!

The word inferior was never used.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

skye said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!
> 
> Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.
> 
> Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You as usual are deliberately twisting what was said!
> 
> The word inferior was never used.
Click to expand...


Well, what does explain certain peoples and nations being denied rights other peoples and nations have? I am a Christian who believes every human being in our world was created in the image of God and loved by the God who created them. And all of our lives matter to the God who created us. Treating certain people as if their lives matter less and their lives have no value and they have less rights is turning my back on Jesus command to me to love others. His command was this, a new command, love one another as I have loved you. There is no room in those words to see any persons life as having less value than my own.


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> We all realize that you would like to see Israel destroyed by your friends, Frau Sherri, and perhaps the only thing holding your friends back is knowing what  Israel has in its arsenal. Syria gave up their nukes? I think they had a little nudge from Israel, wot?  And the treaty doesn't mean you give up your weapons. It means you agree not to use them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Currently 189 states are party to the CWC.[1] Of the seven United Nations Member States that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria)."
> 
> *When might we expect Israel's ratification, before or after regime change in Tehran?*
> 
> Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Israel sez, "We don't need no stinkin' ratification".


----------



## Kondor3

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> "..._I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others._"


Entirely non sequitur to Skye's pointing out your faux analogy and weak segue for another of your endless Israel rants...

If yer gonna hit back, at _least_ use live ammunition rather than blanks, yes?


----------



## Connery

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
Click to expand...


This is about Syria not Israel


----------



## georgephillip

Connery said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about Syria not Israel
Click to expand...

*Israel supports war with Syria.*

"A group from Israel arrived in Washington on August 26.  It included the Director of the Political-Security Staff in the Defense Ministry, Jaj. Gen. (res) Amos Gilad, Director of Planning Branch Maj. Gen. Nimrod Shefer, and IDF intelligence Research Department Director, Brigadier General Ital Brun. After some intense discussions, they shared some of their tapes with US officials.

"The Bandar/AIPAC arguments being, pushed by this delegation and being spread around Capitol Hill as part of 'Israel sharing its sterling intelligence' can be summarized as follows:

"The US must avoid half measures to pursue a limited punitive response to the use of chemical weapons.  What is needed is a sustained Bosnia style bombing campaign until Bashar al-Assad is removed from office.  Giving in to that temptation would be a mistake.

"The use of the CW affords President Obama an underserved opportunity to correct his errant Middle East policies.  

"As Isreals agent, Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is telling anyone who is willing to listen, 'Obamas deep reluctance to engage in Syria is clear to all. This hesitancy is part of his policy to wind down U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and his championing of the idea of "nation building at home.'" 

*The same rich Jews and Saudis who pushed Iran Contra in the 80s and the invasion of Iraq ten years ago are lining up in support of US missiles over Damascus.*

Prince Bandar and Zionist Lobby Partnering to Maneuver Obama into Prolonged War with Syria | Foreign Policy Journal


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Connery said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about Syria not Israel
Click to expand...


A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it.


----------



## Kondor3

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> "..._A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it._"



You should probably go back and re-read the last Moderator's comment about non sequitur segues regarding Israel, in a Syria-focused thread...


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably go back and re-read the last Moderator's comment about non sequitur segues regarding Israel, in a Syria-focused thread...
Click to expand...


Sherri is your typical 'Blame Israel for everything in the Middle East' , terrorist supporting anti-Zionist .


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Syria not Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it.
Click to expand...


Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors

By*Barak Ravid. With Moscow and Washington now discussing a*diplomatic deal*that would rid*Syria*of its*chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say*it possesses.   Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors - Diplomacy and DefenseIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source


----------



## Connery

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Syria not Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it.
Click to expand...



Should Israel conduct themselves as Syria has then I am sure they will be held accountable in the same, if not harsher, manner.

Again this is about Syria, care to join the discussion?


----------



## Bloodrock44

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria just became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty. If they do not follow through then a show of force is appropriate.
> 
> Syria says now a full member of chemical arms pact | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
Click to expand...


*This thread is about going to war with Syria. We understand your obsessive hatred of Israel, but they aren't killing Syrians. Americans aren't killing Syrians. Syrians are killing Syrians. We aren't going to war with Syria. The topic is Syria. Please stay on it.*


----------



## georgephillip

paulitician said:


> Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.


*Think you can join in this discussion without mentioning the contributions of the USA and Israel?*

"Before taking any steps to implement the Russian proposal for surrendering his chemical weapons stocks and means of manufacture, Bashar Assad wants Israel to ratify he Convention banning Chemical Weapons, Israel signed the treaty in 1993 but never ratified it."

DEBKAfile: Assad says Israel must first ratify chemical arms treaty


----------



## Foxfyre

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When shall we see Israel ratify this treaty and get rid of their chemical weapons? When shall we see Israel sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia and Syria set the example for Israel to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!
> 
> Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.
> 
> Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
Click to expand...


Does that mean Christians are not to discern good from evil?  Just from unjust?   Right from wrong?

It is not unChristian to discern that the nation that protects its most vulnerable citizens is certainly superior to the nation that puts its most vulnerable citizens at high risk or wantonly massacres them.

It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that minds its own business and does not bother its neighbors unless sufficiently provoked is certainly superior to a nation that would murder, maim, massacre, and destroy its neighbor.

It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that provides its citizens with maximum freedom of thought, speech, choice, options, and opportunity is certainly superior to the nation that demands all citizens think, speak, choose, and behave alike or else the citizens will be tortured and/or murdered.

Such discernment does not discriminate between what life has more value than another.  In fact it recognizes the worth of all life and denounces those who would wantonly destroy life for no better reason than greed for wealth or power or convenience or due to ideology.

As a Christian, I have no problem with discerning that cruelly and ruthlessly gassing innocent men, women, and children is wrong.  I  have no problem with doing what I can to stop such an atrocity.  And I have no problem with discerning that just blowing something up and probably killing a few more people is not likely to have any affect on stopping such atrocities.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!
> 
> Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.
> 
> Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean Christians are not to discern good from evil?  Just from unjust?   Right from wrong?
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that the nation that protects its most vulnerable citizens is certainly superior to the nation that puts its most vulnerable citizens at high risk or wantonly massacres them.
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that minds its own business and does not bother its neighbors unless sufficiently provoked is certainly superior to a nation that would murder, maim, massacre, and destroy its neighbor.
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that provides its citizens with maximum freedom of thought, speech, choice, options, and opportunity is certainly superior to the nation that demands all citizens think, speak, choose, and behave alike or else the citizens will be tortured and/or murdered.
> 
> Such discernment does not discriminate between what life has more value than another.  In fact it recognizes the worth of all life and denounces those who would wantonly destroy life for no better reason than greed for wealth or power or convenience or due to ideology.
> 
> As a Christian, I have no problem with discerning that cruelly and ruthlessly gassing innocent men, women, and children is wrong.  I  have no problem with doing what I can to stop such an atrocity.  And I have no problem with discerning that just blowing something up and probably killing a few more people is not likely to have any affect on stopping such atrocities.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't bother Foxie, Sherri hates Israel with such a passion that she will always bring up no matter what the dicussion is. We could be discussing rollerblading and she will talk about how cruel and inhumane Israeli roller skaters are.


----------



## High_Gravity

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You as usual are deliberately twisting what was said!
> 
> The word inferior was never used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what does explain certain peoples and nations being denied rights other peoples and nations have? I am a Christian who believes every human being in our world was created in the image of God and loved by the God who created them. And all of our lives matter to the God who created us. Treating certain people as if their lives matter less and their lives have no value and they have less rights is turning my back on Jesus command to me to love others. His command was this, a new command, love one another as I have loved you. There is no room in those words to see any persons life as having less value than my own.
Click to expand...


You are not a Christian, you are brain washed Muslima convert who hates Jews. Stop lying.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean Christians are not to discern good from evil?  Just from unjust?   Right from wrong?
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that the nation that protects its most vulnerable citizens is certainly superior to the nation that puts its most vulnerable citizens at high risk or wantonly massacres them.
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that minds its own business and does not bother its neighbors unless sufficiently provoked is certainly superior to a nation that would murder, maim, massacre, and destroy its neighbor.
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that provides its citizens with maximum freedom of thought, speech, choice, options, and opportunity is certainly superior to the nation that demands all citizens think, speak, choose, and behave alike or else the citizens will be tortured and/or murdered.
> 
> Such discernment does not discriminate between what life has more value than another.  In fact it recognizes the worth of all life and denounces those who would wantonly destroy life for no better reason than greed for wealth or power or convenience or due to ideology.
> 
> As a Christian, I have no problem with discerning that cruelly and ruthlessly gassing innocent men, women, and children is wrong.  I  have no problem with doing what I can to stop such an atrocity.  And I have no problem with discerning that just blowing something up and probably killing a few more people is not likely to have any affect on stopping such atrocities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't bother Foxie, Sherri hates Israel with such a passion that she will always bring up no matter what the dicussion is. We could be discussing rollerblading and she will talk about how cruel and inhumane Israeli roller skaters are.
Click to expand...


My post wasn't necessarily for Sherri's benefit though.  It was my appeal that we all need to dump the senseless political correctness that gives Islamic attitudes/atrocities (or anybody else) a pass while focusing on targets that are considered politically correct to denigrate such as conservatives, Christians, or Israel.


----------



## Foxfyre

For instance, when is our fearless leader going to call upon Islam to stop clinging to their guns and religion?  He had no problem criticizing American Christians for that.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> For instance, when is our fearless leader going to call upon Islam to stop clinging to their guns and religion?  He had no problem criticizing American Christians for that.



If he did that the Muslims would be rioting in the streets LMAO!


----------



## Foxfyre

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Syria not Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
> 
> By*Barak Ravid. With Moscow and Washington now discussing a*diplomatic deal*that would rid*Syria*of its*chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say*it possesses.   Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors - Diplomacy and DefenseIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source
Click to expand...


Nor should it given that this thread is about Syria, who has neither signed nor ratified the treaty, and who IS using chemical weapons.  No nation has anything whatsoever to fear from Israel if it leaves Israel alone or if it treats Israel as any other nation.  Syria has attacked Israel in the past and it has aided and abetted groups sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.  There is nobody, and I mean nobody, who assumes Syria would not immediately overrun Israel the minute it believe it has military superiority.

I have no concerns about Israel having any weapons of any kind.  Syria has demonstrated it cannot be trusted with them.

And therein is the difference and why this is a thread about what our response to Syria should be.  I suggest you focus on that.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Foxfyre said:


> For instance, when is our fearless leader going to call upon Islam to stop clinging to their guns and religion?  He had no problem criticizing American Christians for that.



And where in the world do you see him deriving such an authority to do this from? 

Hubris is a sin. 

Matthew 7:1 Don't judge others or you will be judged.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Foxfyre said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sample is being set, that the world shall later hold Israel to. And commentators are writing about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
> 
> By*Barak Ravid. With Moscow and Washington now discussing a*diplomatic deal*that would rid*Syria*of its*chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say*it possesses.   Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors - Diplomacy and DefenseIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor should it given that this thread is about Syria, who has neither signed nor ratified the treaty, and who IS using chemical weapons.  No nation has anything whatsoever to fear from Israel if it leaves Israel alone or if it treats Israel as any other nation.  Syria has attacked Israel in the past and it has aided and abetted groups sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.  There is nobody, and I mean nobody, who assumes Syria would not immediately overrun Israel the minute it believe it has military superiority.
> 
> I have no concerns about Israel having any weapons of any kind.  Syria has demonstrated it cannot be trusted with them.
> 
> And therein is the difference and why this is a thread about what our response to Syria should be.  I suggest you focus on that.
Click to expand...


Let us try to be truthful.

Syria has now signed the treaty, I think that is what I just read. If Im wrong, please let me know. 

We have no evidence Assad used chemical weapons, repeating unproven allegations over and over never makes them true. 

The thread is a poll addressing whether posters support a US war with Syria, and a place to discuss the prospects of war.

Your opinions about the harmlessness of Israel and Syrias desires or potential actions are your opinions and nothing more. 

Israel has attacked Syria, you leave that fact out of your discussion, as well as the fact Israel occupies land of Syria called the Occupied Golan Heights. 

Groups sworn to wipe Israel off the map sounds like a Zionist Hasbara propaganda claim.

While you may have no concerns about Israel having any weapons of any kind, that is not true for all of us. And as for your opinion that Syria has demonstrated it cannot be trusted with weapons, that is simply your personal opinion, that and nothing else. 

Finally, I suggest you focus on your own acts and STFU about telling me what to do. You are not my Master.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

High_Gravity said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> You as usual are deliberately twisting what was said!
> 
> The word inferior was never used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what does explain certain peoples and nations being denied rights other peoples and nations have? I am a Christian who believes every human being in our world was created in the image of God and loved by the God who created them. And all of our lives matter to the God who created us. Treating certain people as if their lives matter less and their lives have no value and they have less rights is turning my back on Jesus command to me to love others. His command was this, a new command, love one another as I have loved you. There is no room in those words to see any persons life as having less value than my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a Christian, you are brain washed Muslima convert who hates Jews. Stop lying.
Click to expand...


Matthew 7 Don't judge others or you will be judged. You will be judged in the same way that you judge others, and the amount you give to others will be given to you. 

Now, any comments about the thread topic? I oppose war with Syria. And I also oppose arming the Rebels.


----------



## Hossfly

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what does explain certain peoples and nations being denied rights other peoples and nations have? I am a Christian who believes every human being in our world was created in the image of God and loved by the God who created them. And all of our lives matter to the God who created us. Treating certain people as if their lives matter less and their lives have no value and they have less rights is turning my back on Jesus command to me to love others. His command was this, a new command, love one another as I have loved you. There is no room in those words to see any persons life as having less value than my own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a Christian, you are brain washed Muslima convert who hates Jews. Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew 7 Don't judge others or you will be judged. You will be judged in the same way that you judge others, and the amount you give to others will be given to you.
> 
> Now, any comments about the thread topic? I oppose war with Syria. And I also oppose arming the Rebels.
Click to expand...

If you're gonna teach Sunday School, do it on Sunday. In a church.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Foxfyre said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing how you always come back to Israel, no matter what atrocities occur in the Arab world!
> 
> Except for devoted hardline spreaders of propaganda such as yourself, the fact remains that the world community is condemning the fact that Syrians are killing each other with the usual bestial ferocity, using chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children who happen to be citizens of Syria.
> 
> Since when has Israel ever resorted to killing their own citizens in this bestial manner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am amazed at the Hypocrisy and double standards of people who see certain nations and their peoples as inferior to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean Christians are not to discern good from evil?  Just from unjust?   Right from wrong?
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that the nation that protects its most vulnerable citizens is certainly superior to the nation that puts its most vulnerable citizens at high risk or wantonly massacres them.
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that minds its own business and does not bother its neighbors unless sufficiently provoked is certainly superior to a nation that would murder, maim, massacre, and destroy its neighbor.
> 
> It is not unChristian to discern that a nation that provides its citizens with maximum freedom of thought, speech, choice, options, and opportunity is certainly superior to the nation that demands all citizens think, speak, choose, and behave alike or else the citizens will be tortured and/or murdered.
> 
> Such discernment does not discriminate between what life has more value than another.  In fact it recognizes the worth of all life and denounces those who would wantonly destroy life for no better reason than greed for wealth or power or convenience or due to ideology.
> 
> As a Christian, I have no problem with discerning that cruelly and ruthlessly gassing innocent men, women, and children is wrong.  I  have no problem with doing what I can to stop such an atrocity.  And I have no problem with discerning that just blowing something up and probably killing a few more people is not likely to have any affect on stopping such atrocities.
Click to expand...


Christians are not to judge others, calling judging others discernment does not correct the problem.

Seeing any person as superior to another is a sin. Jesus says love one another as I have loved you. 

Nations are ruled by the Prince of this world, Satan, all of them. And that lesson is learned from the Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness.

Returning to the thread, I oppose war with Syria because it violates Jesus commands to love one another. I can never support war in absolutely no circumstances under the sun. 

There may well be a time for war, and that may well be unavoidable, but never is there a time to support war.


----------



## toastman

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
> 
> By*Barak Ravid. With Moscow and Washington now discussing a*diplomatic deal*that would rid*Syria*of its*chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say*it possesses.   Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors - Diplomacy and DefenseIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should it given that this thread is about Syria, who has neither signed nor ratified the treaty, and who IS using chemical weapons.  No nation has anything whatsoever to fear from Israel if it leaves Israel alone or if it treats Israel as any other nation.  Syria has attacked Israel in the past and it has aided and abetted groups sworn to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.  There is nobody, and I mean nobody, who assumes Syria would not immediately overrun Israel the minute it believe it has military superiority.
> 
> I have no concerns about Israel having any weapons of any kind.  Syria has demonstrated it cannot be trusted with them.
> 
> And therein is the difference and why this is a thread about what our response to Syria should be.  I suggest you focus on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us try to be truthful.
> 
> Syria has now signed the treaty, I think that is what I just read. If Im wrong, please let me know.
> 
> We have no evidence Assad used chemical weapons, repeating unproven allegations over and over never makes them true.
> 
> The thread is a poll addressing whether posters support a US war with Syria, and a place to discuss the prospects of war.
> 
> Your opinions about the harmlessness of Israel and Syrias desires or potential actions are your opinions and nothing more.
> 
> Israel has attacked Syria, you leave that fact out of your discussion, as well as the fact Israel occupies land of Syria called the Occupied Golan Heights.
> 
> Groups sworn to wipe Israel off the map sounds like a Zionist Hasbara propaganda claim.
> 
> While you may have no concerns about Israel having any weapons of any kind, that is not true for all of us. And as for your opinion that Syria has demonstrated it cannot be trusted with weapons, that is simply your personal opinion, that and nothing else.
> 
> Finally, I suggest you focus on your own acts and STFU about telling me what to do. You are not my Master.
Click to expand...



Let us be truthful. Every chance you get to shit on Israel or Zionism, you take it., Nobosy takes you seriously, and with good reason.


----------



## georgephillip

*"September 10, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci)* - After a stunning geopolitical move by Russia and Syria involving the surrendering of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, the special interests seeking war have been forced to adjust their rhetoric and timetable around what is now a quickly dissolving casus belli. 

"The surrendering of Syria's chemical weapons would not only critically set back rhetorical arguments being made to justify war with the nation, but would also preempt future false flag operations in the works. 

"Perhaps fearing war was not possible, just such a false flag appears to have been exposed by Russia's English language news service, RT. 

"RT claims sources have discovered a plot by terrorists to carry out a chemical weapons attack on Israel from government controlled areas within Syria for the sole purpose of framing the Syrian government and provoking an Israeli retaliation.

*"One can only imagine the torrent of propaganda that would burst forth from the Western media invoking 'gassed Jews' and the 21st Century 'Hitler' Bashar al-Assad - right around the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks." *

Land Destroyer: URGENT: False Flag Involving Israel to Implicate Syria in the Works Says RT


----------



## Foxfyre

Hossfly said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a Christian, you are brain washed Muslima convert who hates Jews. Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7 Don't judge others or you will be judged. You will be judged in the same way that you judge others, and the amount you give to others will be given to you.
> 
> Now, any comments about the thread topic? I oppose war with Syria. And I also oppose arming the Rebels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're gonna teach Sunday School, do it on Sunday. In a church.
Click to expand...


It's okay.  She isn't teaching Sunday School.  She obviously has not had enough Sunday School to know what Matthew 7 is actually teaching.  And that's okay.  Lots of folks don't.   If you're gonna gig her on something though, gig her on lecturing all of us on our attitudes about Syria and admonishing us not to judge, while she has judged Israel a number of times on this thread and elsewhere.   I believe Jesus called that sort of thing 'hypocrisy'.


----------



## Foxfyre

Meanwhile, our Fearless Leader is jumping up and down to take credit for divesting Assad of his chemical weapons while the Syrian rebels are hopping mad that we're letting Assad turn over his chemical weapons rather than obliterating him.       Honestly, people, if this all wasn't so tragic, you could easily see it being a Keystone Cops routine.



> ISTANBUL, Sept 14 (Reuters) - The head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council said on Saturday a U.S.-Russian agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons was a blow to the two-and-a-half-year uprising to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.
> 
> General Selim Idris said the deal would allow Assad to escape being held accountable for killing hundreds of civilians in a poison gas attack on Damascus on Aug. 21. Assad has denied responsibility for the attack.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced the agreement on removing Syria's chemical weapons on Saturday after nearly three days of talks in Geneva.
> 
> Idris said Assad's forces had started moving some of their chemical weapons to Lebanon and Iraq in the last few days to evade a possible U.N. inspection. The assertion could not be immediately verified.
> 
> "We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled," Idris told reporters in Istanbul.
> 
> "All of this initiative does not interest us. Russia is a partner with the regime in killing the Syrian people. A crime against humanity has been committed and there is not any mention of accountability."
> Syrian Rebels Slam U.S.-Russia Deal, Say Assad Is Moving Chemical Weapons To Lebanon And Iraq



Speaking of Sunday School, Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of the big fish until he agreed to obey God and go preach the word of God to Nineveh.  He loathed Nineveh.  He didn't want to do it.  But he was persuaded via the big fish.  And so he did.  And Ninevah heard him, repented, and turned to God and was blessed by God.  Was Jonah pleased?  Hell no.  He was hopping mad that Nineveh wasn't going to receive the wrath of God and be obliterated.  (Nineveh, by the way, was in that part of the ancient world that is now Iraq.)

Okay the story is likely allegory, but allegory or true, there's no doubt about it.  History does repeat itself.


----------



## percysunshine

Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops | Military.com


What could possibly go wrong?

.


----------



## Foxfyre

percysunshine said:


> Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops | Military.com
> 
> What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> .



Many military types believe Saddam did have chemical weapons at the very least and that he shipped them out to Syria as the coalition was amassing forces to invade Iraq to get them.  So we found much less than we hoped to find, President Bush's credibility was trashed, and we found ourselves embroiled in a decade long conflict that many Americans think didn't accomplish nearly enough to make it worth it.

Now just suppose, President Obama yet again reverses positions and ultimatums and actually puts American boots on the ground to go get Assad's chemical weapons.  The same chemical weapons that Assad has not admitted he has, has not admitted that he used, and that the Syrian rebels now say Assad is busily shipping to Iraq and Lebanon.  So we get in there and find nothing.

Would that affect Obama's crediblity?

Are we happy knowing that chemical weapons have been distributed to Iraq and Lebanon?

Of course all this is still in the 'what if' realm, but the plot definitely thickens.


----------



## JWBooth

percysunshine said:


> Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops | Military.com
> 
> 
> What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> .



Those advocating US military intercession will not allow themselves to be stopped by legal or political means.


----------



## georgephillip

percysunshine said:


> Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops | Military.com
> 
> 
> What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> .


*Someone might point out it's a violation of international law to use or threaten to use force against any sovereign state absent imminent threat of UNSC sanction?*

"In an address to the American people, Obama said he was working with U.S. allies to 'provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement' for ending a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people and made refugees of millions more.

"That simple message belies a hodgepodge of often contradicting goals and strategies unlikely to be resolved by the new international effort to get Bashar Assad's government to relinquish its chemical weapons or by any U.S. military action if diplomacy fails.

"These include Obama's vacillations on providing military assistance to rebels as part of a peace strategy and his repeated demand that Assad relinquish power *but still retain a veto over any replacement government.*"

Obama's Larger Syria Strategy in Disarray | Military.com


----------



## paulitician

What a glorious Sunday in America. A bunch of great Football Games and no useless War. God Bless America.


----------



## Foxfyre

paulitician said:


> What a glorious Sunday in America. A bunch of great Football Games and no useless War. God Bless America.



  Is it okay to be just cautiously optimistic about that?  If Assad is the guilty party re those chemical weapons, the track record for dictators is not very encouraging.  All have said what they thought their 'allies' wanted to hear or instructed them to say, and then they went right ahead and did whatever they damn well pleased.

If the rebels are the guilty party, absolving Assad from the consequences of the crime they tried to pin on him is likely to just spur greater efforts to get the world mad at him.

But in Matthew 24:6 the Bible says:  "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for these things must come to pass; but the end is not yet."

So I think your determination to enjoy this Sunday is justified and the way to go for now.  Gratitude for small blessings amongst the horrendous chaos all around us is a good thing.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

Foxfyre said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a glorious Sunday in America. A bunch of great Football Games and no useless War. God Bless America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it okay to be just cautiously optimistic about that?  If Assad is the guilty party re those chemical weapons, the track record for dictators is not very encouraging.  All have said what they thought their 'allies' wanted to hear or instructed them to say, and then they went right ahead and did whatever they damn well pleased.
> 
> If the rebels are the guilty party, absolving Assad from the consequences of the crime they tried to pin on him is likely to just spur greater efforts to get the world mad at him.
> 
> But in Matthew 24:6 the Bible says:  "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for these things must come to pass; but the end is not yet."
> 
> So I think your determination to enjoy this Sunday is justified and the way to go for now.  Gratitude for small blessings amongst the horrendous chaos all around us is a good thing.
Click to expand...


It is not OK to just be cautiously optimistic. 

The American people won this war against Israel and AIPAC and we are not at war with Syria today.

I cannot stop thanking and praising God for what He has done. 

How great is my God, how great is my God.

And I  hope the American people do not forget the lesson we have learned, we can oppose wars and stop our country from starting new wars.

We can live in peace, peace is as much a choice as war is.


----------



## georgephillip

*"On September 11, Foreign Policy headlined* 'Exclusive: UN Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack,' saying:

'UN inspectors have collected a wealth of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.'

"On September 16, theyre expected to release their findings. Theyll say whether or not chemical weapons were used. If so, which ones. 

"*Theyll do so without attribution.*

"They wont point fingers either way. Syria will be blamed by implication. How this affects events going forward remains to be seen.

"Washington will take full advantage. 

"Moscow demands peaceful conflict resolution. 

"AIPAC and other Zionist organizations want war.

*"Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman said 'Its Iran, Stupid'*
Syrias a sideshow. Its prelude to targeting Tehran.  ADL wants military force against both countries. So do other Israeli Lobby organizations.

"Theyre lobbying Congress to authorize it. 

"*Stopping it faces long odds.*
Assad Pledges Full Cooperation, Pentagon Plans Countdown to War? | Global Research


----------



## Foxfyre

georgephillip said:


> *"On September 11, Foreign Policy headlined* 'Exclusive: UN Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack,' saying:
> 
> 'UN inspectors have collected a wealth of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.'
> 
> "On September 16, theyre expected to release their findings. Theyll say whether or not chemical weapons were used. If so, which ones.
> 
> "*Theyll do so without attribution.*
> 
> "They wont point fingers either way. Syria will be blamed by implication. How this affects events going forward remains to be seen.
> 
> "Washington will take full advantage.
> 
> "Moscow demands peaceful conflict resolution.
> 
> "AIPAC and other Zionist organizations want war.
> 
> *"Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman said 'Its Iran, Stupid'*
> Syrias a sideshow. Its prelude to targeting Tehran.  ADL wants military force against both countries. So do other Israeli Lobby organizations.
> 
> "Theyre lobbying Congress to authorize it.
> 
> "*Stopping it faces long odds.*
> Assad Pledges Full Cooperation, Pentagon Plans Countdown to War? | Global Research



From that lengthy and fairly well done summary, I would have chosen different lines to post to show the problem.  Such as the Turks catching rebels red handed with Sarin in their possession.  That's a pretty important fact for consideration within everything else don't you think?

I don't think Israel has any interest in promoting a Syrian civil war other than it keeps Assad busy and focused on something other than Israel.  I think Israel is perfectly willing to ignore Syria as long as Syria leaves Israel alone.

I do think Israel has a vested interest in Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons along with the capability of short range use of them.  And I would not be surprised to learn that Israel is hoping for a window of opportunity to do something about that.


----------



## georgephillip

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a glorious Sunday in America. A bunch of great Football Games and no useless War. God Bless America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it okay to be just cautiously optimistic about that?  If Assad is the guilty party re those chemical weapons, the track record for dictators is not very encouraging.  All have said what they thought their 'allies' wanted to hear or instructed them to say, and then they went right ahead and did whatever they damn well pleased.
> 
> If the rebels are the guilty party, absolving Assad from the consequences of the crime they tried to pin on him is likely to just spur greater efforts to get the world mad at him.
> 
> But in Matthew 24:6 the Bible says:  "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for these things must come to pass; but the end is not yet."
> 
> So I think your determination to enjoy this Sunday is justified and the way to go for now.  Gratitude for small blessings amongst the horrendous chaos all around us is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not OK to just be cautiously optimistic.
> 
> The American people won this war against Israel and AIPAC and we are not at war with Syria today.
> 
> I cannot stop thanking and praising God for what He has done.
> 
> How great is my God, how great is my God.
> 
> And I  hope the American people do not forget the lesson we have learned, we can oppose wars and stop our country from starting new wars.
> 
> We can live in peace, peace is as much a choice as war is.
Click to expand...

However, peace is currently not nearly as profitable.
That will never change if we continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when electing our House and Senate members. There are third party candidates appearing on many ballots around this country, and millions of voters could say NO to Republican AND Democrat war whores alike.


----------



## georgephillip

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"On September 11, Foreign Policy headlined* 'Exclusive: UN Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack,' saying:
> 
> 'UN inspectors have collected a wealth of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.'
> 
> "On September 16, theyre expected to release their findings. Theyll say whether or not chemical weapons were used. If so, which ones.
> 
> "*Theyll do so without attribution.*
> 
> "They wont point fingers either way. Syria will be blamed by implication. How this affects events going forward remains to be seen.
> 
> "Washington will take full advantage.
> 
> "Moscow demands peaceful conflict resolution.
> 
> "AIPAC and other Zionist organizations want war.
> 
> *"Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman said 'Its Iran, Stupid'*
> Syrias a sideshow. Its prelude to targeting Tehran.  ADL wants military force against both countries. So do other Israeli Lobby organizations.
> 
> "Theyre lobbying Congress to authorize it.
> 
> "*Stopping it faces long odds.*
> Assad Pledges Full Cooperation, Pentagon Plans Countdown to War? | Global Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that lengthy and fairly well done summary, I would have chosen different lines to post to show the problem.  Such as the Turks catching rebels red handed with Sarin in their possession.  That's a pretty important fact for consideration within everything else don't you think?
> 
> I don't think Israel has any interest in promoting a Syrian civil war other than it keeps Assad busy and focused on something other than Israel.  I think Israel is perfectly willing to ignore Syria as long as Syria leaves Israel alone.
> 
> I do think Israel has a vested interest in Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons along with the capability of short range use of them.  And I would not be surprised to learn that Israel is hoping for a window of opportunity to do something about that.
Click to expand...

*Agreed.
I've suspected for a long time both sides in the Syrian civil war have used poison gas on civilians, and I strongly suspect Iran is the ultimate target of both the US and Israel.

What are your thoughts on the Balkanization of Syria, Iraq, Libya...and, eventually, Iran?

While I'm no fan of Farrakhan, the following content seems credible:*

*"Discussions concerning the possible partitioning of Syria became a hot-button issue in the corridors of the UN after a blogger reported that an unnamed diplomat revealed the plan to partition Syria into three new statesAlawite, Sunni and Kurdish."*

*Dividing Syria into three statelets to match a Sunni, Shite, and Baghdad city state in what once was Iraq would seem to make the control of Middle East resources much easier for western interests and their "little, loyal Jewish Ulster."*

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem,(c.1922) certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules - FPIF


----------



## Foxfyre

georgephillip said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"On September 11, Foreign Policy headlined* 'Exclusive: UN Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack,' saying:
> 
> 'UN inspectors have collected a wealth of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.'
> 
> "On September 16, theyre expected to release their findings. Theyll say whether or not chemical weapons were used. If so, which ones.
> 
> "*Theyll do so without attribution.*
> 
> "They wont point fingers either way. Syria will be blamed by implication. How this affects events going forward remains to be seen.
> 
> "Washington will take full advantage.
> 
> "Moscow demands peaceful conflict resolution.
> 
> "AIPAC and other Zionist organizations want war.
> 
> *"Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman said 'Its Iran, Stupid'*
> Syrias a sideshow. Its prelude to targeting Tehran.  ADL wants military force against both countries. So do other Israeli Lobby organizations.
> 
> "Theyre lobbying Congress to authorize it.
> 
> "*Stopping it faces long odds.*
> Assad Pledges Full Cooperation, Pentagon Plans Countdown to War? | Global Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that lengthy and fairly well done summary, I would have chosen different lines to post to show the problem.  Such as the Turks catching rebels red handed with Sarin in their possession.  That's a pretty important fact for consideration within everything else don't you think?
> 
> I don't think Israel has any interest in promoting a Syrian civil war other than it keeps Assad busy and focused on something other than Israel.  I think Israel is perfectly willing to ignore Syria as long as Syria leaves Israel alone.
> 
> I do think Israel has a vested interest in Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons along with the capability of short range use of them.  And I would not be surprised to learn that Israel is hoping for a window of opportunity to do something about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Agreed.
> I've suspected for a long time both sides in the Syrian civil war have used poison gas on civilians, and I strongly suspect Iran is the ultimate target of both the US and Israel.
> 
> What are your thoughts on the Balkanization of Syria, Iraq, Libya...and, eventually, Iran?
> 
> While I'm no fan of Farrakhan, the following content seems credible:*
> 
> *"Discussions concerning the possible partitioning of Syria became a hot-button issue in the corridors of the UN after a blogger reported that an unnamed diplomat revealed the plan to partition Syria into three new statesAlawite, Sunni and Kurdish."*
> 
> *Dividing Syria into three statelets to match a Sunni, Shite, and Baghdad city state in what once was Iraq would seem to make the control of Middle East resources much easier for western interests and their "little, loyal Jewish Ulster."*
> 
> "Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem,(c.1922) certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'
> 
> Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules - FPIF
Click to expand...


I really have no opinion on that GP.  Make three teensy countries out of one that isn't all that big?  Maybe that would be a good thing.  Maybe not.  It certainly would have made sense in Iraq awhile back to separate the Sunnis, Sh'ites, and Kurds, but they decided against that for whatever reason.  So why are they so gung ho to do that in Syria?

I do lean more to the rebels being the Sarin culprits though because they had everything to gain by using it an blaming it on Assad.  He had little or nothing to gain by using it in a very limited way and bringing down international outrage upon himself.

And in the final analysis, we really don't know who used it.   And I don' think there is any ultimate proof to justify a retalitory strike by us or anybody else.  And I don't think such a strike would accomplish anything other than create some fire works, blow something up, and maybe kill more people.


----------



## Ed_Brown

both sides are deserving of what they're inflicting on one another.


----------



## MisterBeale

Foxfyre said:


> I really have no opinion on that GP.  Make three teensy countries out of one that isn't all that big?  Maybe that would be a good thing.  Maybe not.  It certainly would have made sense in Iraq awhile back to separate the Sunnis, Sh'ites, and Kurds, but they decided against that for whatever reason.  So why are they so gung ho to do that in Syria?
> 
> I do lean more to the rebels being the Sarin culprits though because they had everything to gain by using it an blaming it on Assad.  He had little or nothing to gain by using it in a very limited way and bringing down international outrage upon himself.
> 
> And in the final analysis, we really don't know who used it.   And I don' think there is any ultimate proof to justify a retalitory strike by us or anybody else.  And I don't think such a strike would accomplish anything other than create some fire works, blow something up, and maybe kill more people.



Who said TPTB are done with Iraq?  Who said anything about three tiny countries made out of just Syria?  Who said the civil strife and civil war was through in Iraq?  The same Kurds that are in northern Syria are no different than the ones that are in northern Iraq.  The same Sunni's in the east of Syria are in the west of Iraq.  I think they have bigger plans than what were hinted at in that article.  If they can fund Al-Qaeda in one area, it is all the same Al-Qaeda to them.

'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19059004-the-battlefields-are-merging-surge-in-violence-raises-fears-of-new-war-in-iraq-and-beyond?lite


> A major uptick in sectarian violence which has killed about 2,000 people since April 1 has sparked fears that Iraq is heading for a full-scale civil war that could draw in powerful regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> There are already signs that the current conflict is starting to merge with the bitter fighting in Syria, creating a war zone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf.
> 
> The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraqs leaders to take urgent action.



....



> Ken Pollack, a former military analyst with the CIA who specialized on Iraq and Iran, said there was a real danger that a full-scale, Syria-style civil war would break out along that fault line in the next year.
> 
> I think anyone would be a fool to bet against it, he said. Whats interesting to me is Iraq hasnt gone down that route already or isnt further along. By any definition, whats going on in Iraq is a civil war.
> 
> Pollack, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institutions Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said the country might go off a cliff or suffer a longer period of more gradual security decline.
> 
> The one sure thing is Iraq is not going to get better, he added.



These global elites have had a plan, a far reaching plan.  It's going to require boots on the ground again before it is all over again though I'm afraid.

I don't think the Russians and the Chinese are just going to let us hobble together a new NATO Kurdistan that is a client state like Turkey and Israel though.


----------



## georgephillip

MisterBeale said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have no opinion on that GP.  Make three teensy countries out of one that isn't all that big?  Maybe that would be a good thing.  Maybe not.  It certainly would have made sense in Iraq awhile back to separate the Sunnis, Sh'ites, and Kurds, but they decided against that for whatever reason.  So why are they so gung ho to do that in Syria?
> 
> I do lean more to the rebels being the Sarin culprits though because they had everything to gain by using it an blaming it on Assad.  He had little or nothing to gain by using it in a very limited way and bringing down international outrage upon himself.
> 
> And in the final analysis, we really don't know who used it.   And I don' think there is any ultimate proof to justify a retalitory strike by us or anybody else.  And I don't think such a strike would accomplish anything other than create some fire works, blow something up, and maybe kill more people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said TPTB are done with Iraq?  Who said anything about three tiny countries made out of just Syria?  Who said the civil strife and civil war was through in Iraq?  The same Kurds that are in northern Syria are no different than the ones that are in northern Iraq.  The same Sunni's in the east of Syria are in the west of Iraq.  I think they have bigger plans than what were hinted at in that article.  If they can fund Al-Qaeda in one area, it is all the same Al-Qaeda to them.
> 
> 'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond
> http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19059004-the-battlefields-are-merging-surge-in-violence-raises-fears-of-new-war-in-iraq-and-beyond?lite
> 
> 
> 
> A major uptick in sectarian violence which has killed about 2,000 people since April 1 has sparked fears that Iraq is heading for a full-scale civil war that could draw in powerful regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> There are already signs that the current conflict is starting to merge with the bitter fighting in Syria, creating a war zone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf.
> 
> The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraq&#8217;s leaders to take urgent action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Pollack, a former military analyst with the CIA who specialized on Iraq and Iran, said there was a real danger that a full-scale, Syria-style civil war would break out along that fault line in the next year.
> 
> &#8220;I think anyone would be a fool to bet against it,&#8221; he said. &#8220;What&#8217;s interesting to me is Iraq hasn&#8217;t gone down that route already or isn&#8217;t further along. By any definition, what&#8217;s going on in Iraq is a civil war.&#8221;
> 
> Pollack, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution&#8217;s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said the country might &#8220;go off a cliff&#8221; or suffer a &#8220;longer period of more gradual security decline.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;The one sure thing is Iraq is not going to get better,&#8221; he added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These global elites have had a plan, a far reaching plan.  It's going to require boots on the ground again before it is all over again though I'm afraid.
> 
> I don't think the Russians and the Chinese are just going to let us hobble together a new NATO Kurdistan that is a client state like Turkey and Israel though.
Click to expand...

"The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraq&#8217;s leaders to take urgent action.

*"'Small children are burned alive in cars*. 

"'Worshippers are cut down outside their own mosques. This is beyond unacceptable,' he said on May 17; 'Systemic violence is ready to explode at any moment,' was his message on May 30; and on June 16, he complained of 'another round of deadly and remorseless acts of terrorism.'

"Speaking by phone from Baghdad on Thursday, Kobler said: 'Sectarianism is on the rise in the region and this is something that has to be reversed.'"
'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond - World News

*Can many Americans imagine their "small children" burning alive in the family SUV outside of (Super Bowl) Sunday School?*


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have no opinion on that GP.  Make three teensy countries out of one that isn't all that big?  Maybe that would be a good thing.  Maybe not.  It certainly would have made sense in Iraq awhile back to separate the Sunnis, Sh'ites, and Kurds, but they decided against that for whatever reason.  So why are they so gung ho to do that in Syria?
> 
> I do lean more to the rebels being the Sarin culprits though because they had everything to gain by using it an blaming it on Assad.  He had little or nothing to gain by using it in a very limited way and bringing down international outrage upon himself.
> 
> And in the final analysis, we really don't know who used it.   And I don' think there is any ultimate proof to justify a retalitory strike by us or anybody else.  And I don't think such a strike would accomplish anything other than create some fire works, blow something up, and maybe kill more people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said TPTB are done with Iraq?  Who said anything about three tiny countries made out of just Syria?  Who said the civil strife and civil war was through in Iraq?  The same Kurds that are in northern Syria are no different than the ones that are in northern Iraq.  The same Sunni's in the east of Syria are in the west of Iraq.  I think they have bigger plans than what were hinted at in that article.  If they can fund Al-Qaeda in one area, it is all the same Al-Qaeda to them.
> 
> 'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond
> http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19059004-the-battlefields-are-merging-surge-in-violence-raises-fears-of-new-war-in-iraq-and-beyond?lite
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Pollack, a former military analyst with the CIA who specialized on Iraq and Iran, said there was a real danger that a full-scale, Syria-style civil war would break out along that fault line in the next year.
> 
> &#8220;I think anyone would be a fool to bet against it,&#8221; he said. &#8220;What&#8217;s interesting to me is Iraq hasn&#8217;t gone down that route already or isn&#8217;t further along. By any definition, what&#8217;s going on in Iraq is a civil war.&#8221;
> 
> Pollack, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution&#8217;s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said the country might &#8220;go off a cliff&#8221; or suffer a &#8220;longer period of more gradual security decline.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;The one sure thing is Iraq is not going to get better,&#8221; he added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These global elites have had a plan, a far reaching plan.  It's going to require boots on the ground again before it is all over again though I'm afraid.
> 
> I don't think the Russians and the Chinese are just going to let us hobble together a new NATO Kurdistan that is a client state like Turkey and Israel though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraq&#8217;s leaders to take urgent action.
> 
> *"'Small children are burned alive in cars*.
> 
> "'Worshippers are cut down outside their own mosques. This is beyond unacceptable,' he said on May 17; 'Systemic violence is ready to explode at any moment,' was his message on May 30; and on June 16, he complained of 'another round of deadly and remorseless acts of terrorism.'
> 
> "Speaking by phone from Baghdad on Thursday, Kobler said: 'Sectarianism is on the rise in the region and this is something that has to be reversed.'"
> 'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond - World News
> 
> *Can many Americans imagine their "small children" burning alive in the family SUV outside of (Super Bowl) Sunday School?*
Click to expand...

Thank the Lord that Americans don't have such peaceful religions. Birth pangs? Try diarrhea.


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said TPTB are done with Iraq?  Who said anything about three tiny countries made out of just Syria?  Who said the civil strife and civil war was through in Iraq?  The same Kurds that are in northern Syria are no different than the ones that are in northern Iraq.  The same Sunni's in the east of Syria are in the west of Iraq.  I think they have bigger plans than what were hinted at in that article.  If they can fund Al-Qaeda in one area, it is all the same Al-Qaeda to them.
> 
> 'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond
> http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19059004-the-battlefields-are-merging-surge-in-violence-raises-fears-of-new-war-in-iraq-and-beyond?lite
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> These global elites have had a plan, a far reaching plan.  It's going to require boots on the ground again before it is all over again though I'm afraid.
> 
> I don't think the Russians and the Chinese are just going to let us hobble together a new NATO Kurdistan that is a client state like Turkey and Israel though.
> 
> 
> 
> "The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraqs leaders to take urgent action.
> 
> *"'Small children are burned alive in cars*.
> 
> "'Worshippers are cut down outside their own mosques. This is beyond unacceptable,' he said on May 17; 'Systemic violence is ready to explode at any moment,' was his message on May 30; and on June 16, he complained of 'another round of deadly and remorseless acts of terrorism.'
> 
> "Speaking by phone from Baghdad on Thursday, Kobler said: 'Sectarianism is on the rise in the region and this is something that has to be reversed.'"
> 'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond - World News
> 
> *Can many Americans imagine their "small children" burning alive in the family SUV outside of (Super Bowl) Sunday School?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank the Lord that Americans don't have such peaceful religions. Birth pangs? Try diarrhea.
Click to expand...

*Diarrhea of the rich white mouth:*

"John Kerry: 'Now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. The threat of force is real, and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal.'"

Headlines for September 16, 2013 | Democracy Now!


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The United Nations envoy in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has issued repeated warnings in the last few weeks, pleading with Iraqs leaders to take urgent action.
> 
> *"'Small children are burned alive in cars*.
> 
> "'Worshippers are cut down outside their own mosques. This is beyond unacceptable,' he said on May 17; 'Systemic violence is ready to explode at any moment,' was his message on May 30; and on June 16, he complained of 'another round of deadly and remorseless acts of terrorism.'
> 
> "Speaking by phone from Baghdad on Thursday, Kobler said: 'Sectarianism is on the rise in the region and this is something that has to be reversed.'"
> 'The battlefields are merging': Surge in violence raises fears of new war in Iraq and beyond - World News
> 
> *Can many Americans imagine their "small children" burning alive in the family SUV outside of (Super Bowl) Sunday School?*
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the Lord that Americans don't have such peaceful religions. Birth pangs? Try diarrhea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Diarrhea of the rich white mouth:*
> 
> "John Kerry: 'Now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. The threat of force is real, and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal.'"
> 
> Headlines for September 16, 2013 | Democracy Now!
Click to expand...

Does it really bother you, Georgie Boy, if White men have money?  There are many Black men who have money also.


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the Lord that Americans don't have such peaceful religions. Birth pangs? Try diarrhea.
> 
> 
> 
> *Diarrhea of the rich white mouth:*
> 
> "John Kerry: 'Now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. The threat of force is real, and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal.'"
> 
> Headlines for September 16, 2013 | Democracy Now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it really bother you, Georgie Boy, if White men have money?  There are many Black men who have money also.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you that your Secretary of State is making terrorist threats against a sovereign nation in violation of international law?


----------



## Hossfly

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Diarrhea of the rich white mouth:*
> 
> "John Kerry: 'Now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. The threat of force is real, and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal.'"
> 
> Headlines for September 16, 2013 | Democracy Now!
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really bother you, Georgie Boy, if White men have money?  There are many Black men who have money also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it bother you that your Secretary of State is making terrorist threats against a sovereign nation in violation of international law?
Click to expand...

Did I  say I even liked Kerry?  Did I ever say that I thought we should get involved in this mess?  However, it is quite clear that you are bitter against rich men when it was your own lack of initiative which held  you back.


----------



## MisterBeale

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the Lord that Americans don't have such peaceful religions. Birth pangs? Try diarrhea.
> 
> 
> 
> *Diarrhea of the rich white mouth:*
> 
> "John Kerry: 'Now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. The threat of force is real, and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal.'"
> 
> Headlines for September 16, 2013 | Democracy Now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it really bother you, Georgie Boy, if White men have money?  There are many Black men who have money also.
Click to expand...

You know what?  It does bother me when the Anglo-American Empire plays with religious groups and ethnic groups, uses them, funds them, fans their hatreds, fund their different competing little quarreling sectarian groups and arms them, and moves them all around like little pieces on a chessboard.  

Then when the whole middle-east erupts in flames and innocent civilians die, OUR leaders and our corporate controlled media blitz our goddamned low information,  paying attention to the stupid twerking video awards, and college football, swallowing everything piece of shit poison propaganda crap the establishment feeds them, all to draw this nation into a new global war that this country can no longer afford to fight.

And now, for the first time in our history when we have citizen journalists alerting people  to _reality_, and a new citizen led non-profit driven 4th estate media via the internet, our ASSHOLE corporate controlled, Zionist/Bankster interest group controlled SO-called representative democracy has introduced a bill to congress to muzzle our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  ALL SO ISRAEL AND SAUDI ARABIA CAN HAVE THEIR GOD DAMNED WWIII!

Frankly, I always thought they would go after the First Amendment AFTER they took away the guns.  Guess they finally decided that the alternative media was blowing away their little lies about the false flags.  If you can't convince people that the so called "mass shootings" vis-a-vie government sponsored psy-ops, how are you going to get guns illegal?

So now we have the SHIELD LAW.  The most crafty attack on the FIRST AMENDMENT ever devised.  And of course, the MSM isn't covering it, they're the oligopoly that stands to benefit, right?  Soon, all we will hear on any issue is the side of the story we are SUPPOSED to hear.

*Feinstein: Youre Not a Real Journalist Unless You Draw a Salary*
http://www.infowars.com/feinstein-youre-not-a-real-journalist-unless-you-draw-a-salary/


> Feinstein voiced her concern that the current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who arent really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications, like bloggers and citizen journalists.
> 
> Last week, Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, worried the Shield Law, if passed, would be used to protect whistleblowers and others who ferret out government corruption.
> 
> The world has changed. Were very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldnt be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and weve ensured that, Schumer said. But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than were used to. They should not be excluded from this bill.
> 
> The bill moving through Congress would require the Justice Department to notify reporters it decides to monitor. The law would allow Justice Department officials to delay notice for a period of 45 days. In addition, it would permit the DOJ to ask for an extension of 45 days.



Media Shield Law is armor for the autocrats
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57929


> Additionally, the same people who rely on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to expose government corruption are the same people who will fall all over themselves to promote this feigned treaty of cooperation between the oligarchs and the unwashed. While they chase their tails over papers peppered in black that tell nothing to those requesting the truth, the people in power chuckle at the sideshow while advancing their objectives. They are doubling down to prevent the exposure of their nefarious plans of subjugating the worlds populace to global domination, and have no intention of disclosure.
> 
> You dont have to believe me, though. Instead, let the words of David Rockefeller, talking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany speak for themselves:
> 
> _We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
> 
> It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries._
> 
> Dont fall for this Trojan Horse legislation. Make your voices heard before they are silenced.



*A shield law for journalists might seem like a good idea, but it isnt  its actually a terrible idea*
http://paidcontent.org/2013/09/13/a-shield-law-for-journalists-might-seem-like-a-good-idea-but-it-isnt-its-actually-a-terrible-idea/


> _A proposed shield law for journalists is intended to protect them from government pressure and intervention. But what it really does is allow the government to define who gets to be a journalist and who doesnt. And thats dangerous._





​


> The biggest flaw in the process is obvious as soon as you read descriptions of how the senators tried to define a journalist. Although some have congratulated the group for broadening the definition from earlier versions  which more or less applied the label only to those working for traditional media outlets  one of the senators main goals appears to have been coming up with a definition that includes bloggers and various kinds of freelancers, but still somehow excludes WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
> 
> The problem with doing that is that its almost impossible to achieve without stating in the bill itself that everyone is a journalist, except for those who are associated with WikiLeaks, or anything like WikiLeaks. As I and others have tried to point out a number of times, while not everyone working for the organization could be thought of as a journalist, WikiLeaks is clearly a media entity  a key part of what Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler has called the networked fourth estate.


----------



## georgephillip

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really bother you, Georgie Boy, if White men have money?  There are many Black men who have money also.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that your Secretary of State is making terrorist threats against a sovereign nation in violation of international law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I  say I even liked Kerry?  Did I ever say that I thought we should get involved in this mess?  However, it is quite clear that you are bitter against rich men when it was your own lack of initiative which held  you back.
Click to expand...

It was my own lack of subservience to those who get rich from the murder, maiming, and displacement of millions of innocent human beings that "held me back." When are you planning to stop cringing behind your flag and medals every time the subject of US war crimes arises?


----------



## steelll

This video (youtube. com/watch?v=Bc39Z84uLqI) shows the truth about the situation in Syria. The GB-gas is delivered to the country from US research center "Jack Camp" that is situated in Georgia (a Caucasian republic). Later the weapons go to the so-called "rebels" who use them to kill local population.


----------



## Hossfly

MisterBeale said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Diarrhea of the rich white mouth:*
> 
> "John Kerry: 'Now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be, and President Obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. The threat of force is real, and the Assad regime and all those taking part need to understand that President Obama and the United States are committed to achieve this goal.'"
> 
> Headlines for September 16, 2013 | Democracy Now!
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really bother you, Georgie Boy, if White men have money?  There are many Black men who have money also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  It does bother me when the Anglo-American Empire plays with religious groups and ethnic groups, uses them, funds them, fans their hatreds, fund their different competing little quarreling sectarian groups and arms them, and moves them all around like little pieces on a chessboard.
> 
> Then when the whole middle-east erupts in flames and innocent civilians die, OUR leaders and our corporate controlled media blitz our goddamned low information,  paying attention to the stupid twerking video awards, and college football, swallowing everything piece of shit poison propaganda crap the establishment feeds them, all to draw this nation into a new global war that this country can no longer afford to fight.
> 
> And now, for the first time in our history when we have citizen journalists alerting people  to _reality_, and a new citizen led non-profit driven 4th estate media via the internet, our ASSHOLE corporate controlled, Zionist/Bankster interest group controlled SO-called representative democracy has introduced a bill to congress to muzzle our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  ALL SO ISRAEL AND SAUDI ARABIA CAN HAVE THEIR GOD DAMNED WWIII!
> 
> Frankly, I always thought they would go after the First Amendment AFTER they took away the guns.  Guess they finally decided that the alternative media was blowing away their little lies about the false flags.  If you can't convince people that the so called "mass shootings" vis-a-vie government sponsored psy-ops, how are you going to get guns illegal?
> 
> So now we have the SHIELD LAW.  The most crafty attack on the FIRST AMENDMENT ever devised.  And of course, the MSM isn't covering it, they're the oligopoly that stands to benefit, right?  Soon, all we will hear on any issue is the side of the story we are SUPPOSED to hear.
> 
> *Feinstein: Youre Not a Real Journalist Unless You Draw a Salary*
> http://www.infowars.com/feinstein-youre-not-a-real-journalist-unless-you-draw-a-salary/
> 
> 
> Media Shield Law is armor for the autocrats
> http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57929
> 
> 
> *A shield law for journalists might seem like a good idea, but it isnt  its actually a terrible idea*
> http://paidcontent.org/2013/09/13/a-shield-law-for-journalists-might-seem-like-a-good-idea-but-it-isnt-its-actually-a-terrible-idea/
> 
> 
> 
> _A proposed shield law for journalists is intended to protect them from government pressure and intervention. But what it really does is allow the government to define who gets to be a journalist and who doesnt. And thats dangerous._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest flaw in the process is obvious as soon as you read descriptions of how the senators tried to define a journalist. Although some have congratulated the group for broadening the definition from earlier versions  which more or less applied the label only to those working for traditional media outlets  one of the senators main goals appears to have been coming up with a definition that includes bloggers and various kinds of freelancers, but still somehow excludes WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
> 
> The problem with doing that is that its almost impossible to achieve without stating in the bill itself that everyone is a journalist, except for those who are associated with WikiLeaks, or anything like WikiLeaks. As I and others have tried to point out a number of times, while not everyone working for the organization could be thought of as a journalist, WikiLeaks is clearly a media entity  a key part of what Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler has called the networked fourth estate.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Being a redneck, good-ol-boy cracker, I wouldn't know much about all that wheelin' and dealin'. Right now, my worries are having a sick coon dog and if I have to drive him to the vet in the city, I'll prolly miss the rasslin' matches on the Tee Vee..


----------



## Hossfly

steelll said:


> This video (youtube. com/watch?v=Bc39Z84uLqI) shows the truth about the situation in Syria. The GB-gas is delivered to the country from US research center "Jack Camp" that is situated in Georgia (a Caucasian republic). Later the weapons go to the so-called "rebels" who use them to kill local population.


You take that BS to the Conspiracy Theory section, Rusty.


----------



## georgephillip

*International law precludes the use of force or the threat of force without UNSC authorization or proof of imminent threat; however, apparently this only applies to countries other than the US and Israel.*

"The US state is above international law, according to US president Barack Obama. 

"In an address announcing that he was referring to the US Congress the decision to take military action against Syria, Obama declared that the United States needs to violate international law in order to enforce 'the international system' and 'international rules.'

"The international 'system' and 'rules' Obama referred to, which he apparently intended his audience to construe as 'international law,' is not, in fact, international law, but rules Obama himself has unilaterally drawn up, and through rhetorical sleight of hand, attempted to pass off as international law. 

"Obama has no regard for international law. 

"The very act Obama proposeswaging war on Syria without UN Security Council authorizationis a flagrant violation of the authentic international system Obama deceptively claims he wishes to uphold. Obama has arrogated onto himself the powers and responsibilities of world ruler. 

"He sets the rules, decides when theyre broken, and metes out the punishment.

Counter-Questions on Syria: Obama Brushes Aside International Law | Global Research

*Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran are all slated to face Obama.'s version of international law which is really the same law applied by the mafia.*


----------



## candycorn

The Rabbi said:


> With this much consensus it must clearly be wrong.
> 
> I'll offer the opposite view.  Once Obama made an issue of Syria's use of chemical weapons then it became something we would have to do.  Chemical weapons are the big taboo of war.  Hardly anyone has used them since WW1.  Even Hitler would not use chem weapons.
> If we stand aside and let Assad's use of them go then it will give the greenlight to everyone in the world to start using them.  We must take a stand, a credible one, and show that use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Lobbing a few cruise missiles will not do that.
> There are few good options here.  That is the position Obama and his inexperience have gotten us into.  But that is where we are.





Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm seeing a lot of articles that make military action seem inevitable.
> 
> Just as with Iraq, I'm waving my arms, saying "please don't do this".
> 
> Doesn't seem to be working.  Again.
> 
> .



It worked.  Now of course the Conservatives are for going to war….


----------



## candycorn

Geaux4it said:


> The initial international support that is caving is telling
> 
> In all seriousness, Obama needs to pull back here.
> 
> -Geaux



He did.  Now you’re criticizing him for it!!!


----------



## paulitician

The Globalist Elites always get their wars. The People have no say in it. I mean, most Americans still can't fathom the fact their own Government funded, armed, and trained ISIS. It was created to 'Regime Change' Assad. Americans really do need to seek alternative media news sources for their information. Their Government/Corporate Media lies. It is what it is.


----------



## candycorn

Kondor3 said:


> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!



Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).  

Go figure.


----------



## candycorn

paulitician said:


> The Globalist Elites always get their wars. The People have no say in it. I mean, most Americans still can't fathom the fact their own Government funded, armed, and trained ISIS. It was created to 'Regime Change' Assad. Americans really do need to seek alternative media news sources for their information. Their Government/Corporate Media lies. It is what it is.



You may note Obama hasn’t changed in 3 years since you started this thread….


----------



## paulitician

candycorn said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Globalist Elites always get their wars. The People have no say in it. I mean, most Americans still can't fathom the fact their own Government funded, armed, and trained ISIS. It was created to 'Regime Change' Assad. Americans really do need to seek alternative media news sources for their information. Their Government/Corporate Media lies. It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may note Obama hasn’t changed in 3 years since you started this thread….
Click to expand...


He's currently bombing and killing plenty in Syria. The Globalist Elites got their war. The People have no say in it.


----------



## Bleipriester

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
Click to expand...

Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. And there is the Syrian air defense, too. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.


----------



## The Rabbi

Bleipriester said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.
Click to expand...

You are obviously an agent for Putin and rooting for America's defeat.  That's assuming you could find America on a map with both hands.
Russia has made Assad a client.


----------



## Bleipriester

The Rabbi said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously an agent for Putin and rooting for America's defeat.  That's assuming you could find America on a map with both hands.
> Russia has made Assad a client.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone who does not agree to the US foreign policy is a stooge and wants the US to be destroyed, its citizens killed 

Of course, Russia´s participation in the war came at the request of the Syrian government and Putin even offered to consider sending an army at the request of the Syrian government, which they said is currently not necessary. Now that the Syrian army is about to capture ISIS´ "capital", the puppet masters of ISIS are in dire alert and want to bomb the Syrian forces in order to provide a larger lifespan to their terrorists of ISIS and al-Qaeda. You see, the memo came after Kerry said his patience in Syria is running out...


----------



## The Rabbi

Bleipriester said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously an agent for Putin and rooting for America's defeat.  That's assuming you could find America on a map with both hands.
> Russia has made Assad a client.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, everyone who does not agree to the US foreign policy, is a stooge and want the US to be destroyed, its citizens killed
> 
> Of course, Russia´s participation in the war came at the request of the Syrian government and Putin even offered to consider sending an army at the request of the Syrian government, which they said is currently not necessary. Now that the Syrian army is about to capture ISIS´ "capital", the puppet masters of ISIS are in dire alert and want to bomb the Syrian forces in order to provide a larger lifespan to their terrorists of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Once Putin finishes off ISIS he will turn his attention to Kansas.  I wonder if Obama can negotiate keeping part of it.


----------



## Bleipriester

The Rabbi said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously an agent for Putin and rooting for America's defeat.  That's assuming you could find America on a map with both hands.
> Russia has made Assad a client.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, everyone who does not agree to the US foreign policy, is a stooge and want the US to be destroyed, its citizens killed
> 
> Of course, Russia´s participation in the war came at the request of the Syrian government and Putin even offered to consider sending an army at the request of the Syrian government, which they said is currently not necessary. Now that the Syrian army is about to capture ISIS´ "capital", the puppet masters of ISIS are in dire alert and want to bomb the Syrian forces in order to provide a larger lifespan to their terrorists of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once Putin finishes off ISIS he will turn his attention to Kansas.  I wonder if Obama can negotiate keeping part of it.
Click to expand...

Are you joking or what is this about?


----------



## paulitician

Bleipriester said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously an agent for Putin and rooting for America's defeat.  That's assuming you could find America on a map with both hands.
> Russia has made Assad a client.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, everyone who does not agree to the US foreign policy, is a stooge and want the US to be destroyed, its citizens killed
> 
> Of course, Russia´s participation in the war came at the request of the Syrian government and Putin even offered to consider sending an army at the request of the Syrian government, which they said is currently not necessary. Now that the Syrian army is about to capture ISIS´ "capital", the puppet masters of ISIS are in dire alert and want to bomb the Syrian forces in order to provide a larger lifespan to their terrorists of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...


I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.

They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.


----------



## Bleipriester

paulitician said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those 51 guys are far away from the reality. Even if Moscow would not be interested in preventing a rescue packet for terrorists, they cannot afford to lose their face. The moronic 51 are provoking a world war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously an agent for Putin and rooting for America's defeat.  That's assuming you could find America on a map with both hands.
> Russia has made Assad a client.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, everyone who does not agree to the US foreign policy, is a stooge and want the US to be destroyed, its citizens killed
> 
> Of course, Russia´s participation in the war came at the request of the Syrian government and Putin even offered to consider sending an army at the request of the Syrian government, which they said is currently not necessary. Now that the Syrian army is about to capture ISIS´ "capital", the puppet masters of ISIS are in dire alert and want to bomb the Syrian forces in order to provide a larger lifespan to their terrorists of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
Click to expand...

And when these groups have done their jobs they make up a great reasons to intervene...
The Obama presidency dovetail with the previous one. It was in 2007, when the US started to support Sunni extremist and terrorist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq, which was declared in 2006 but dates back to late 90`s. ISIS has been an al-Qaeda branch like many in other countries like "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula", whose flag is this one:




Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike other al-Qaeda groups, ISIS distanced themselves from al-Qaeda when they gained more strength.

Read more about the shift in the US foreign policy which was called "The Redirection":
The Redirection - The New Yorker


----------



## rhodescholar

candycorn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
Click to expand...


obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.



I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.

As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.


----------



## Bleipriester

rhodescholar said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
Click to expand...

lol, "moderate rebels"...


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
Click to expand...


Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
Click to expand...


who ?     tell us what you  ""KNOW""


----------



## irosie91

Bleipriester said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, "moderate rebels"...
Click to expand...


LOL   "friendly, humanitarian Baathist assad"


----------



## Bleipriester

irosie91 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, "moderate rebels"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL   "friendly, humanitarian Baathist assad"
Click to expand...

rhodescholar´s "moderate rebels" celebrating the "liberation" of Raqqa:


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
Click to expand...


ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD


----------



## irosie91

Bleipriester said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am proud of the folks on this Board* -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - seeing such solidarity against Military Intervention in Syria, amongst such an otherwise politically diverse audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, "moderate rebels"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL   "friendly, humanitarian Baathist assad"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rhodescholar´s "moderate rebels" celebrating the "liberation" of Raqqa:
Click to expand...


your picture reveals nothing


----------



## Bleipriester

irosie91 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, "moderate rebels"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL   "friendly, humanitarian Baathist assad"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rhodescholar´s "moderate rebels" celebrating the "liberation" of Raqqa:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your picture reveals nothing
Click to expand...

Not for an ISIS stooge.


----------



## irosie91

Bleipriester said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, "moderate rebels"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL   "friendly, humanitarian Baathist assad"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rhodescholar´s "moderate rebels" celebrating the "liberation" of Raqqa:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your picture reveals nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for an ISIS stooge.
Click to expand...


the usual shallow parrot chirp


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well 50 diplomats want Obama to do more and since it will look bad for him…many here are, of course, stating that the diplomats are right (despite the almost uniform rebuke here).
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama is a POS and should have created a no-fly zone in 2011, it would have prevented the mass arab muslim invasion of europe and given the FSA/moderate rebels a place from which to remove the 50-year assad family dynasty, perhaps even preventing many/most of the lunatic massacres assad has committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, "moderate rebels"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL   "friendly, humanitarian Baathist assad"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rhodescholar´s "moderate rebels" celebrating the "liberation" of Raqqa:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your picture reveals nothing
Click to expand...


captain blei answered  "funny"-----he seem to imagine that his picture "proves"
something important.


----------



## Bleipriester

irosie is very concerned...


----------



## irosie91

Bleipriester said:


> irosie is very concerned...



about what?


----------



## Bleipriester

Who knows? Fact is you are posting here a lot and quote yourself and reply.


----------



## irosie91

Bleipriester said:


> Who knows? Fact is you are posting here a lot and quote yourself and reply.



I "quote myself"------??    do I provide a citation?


----------



## Redfish

ISIS is not Syria


----------



## irosie91

Redfish said:


> ISIS is not Syria



Captain blei argues that anything that does not support the kingly rule of  ASSAD----is ISIS.  ISIS is an evil force which opposes BAATHIST ASSAD.   If anyone who is not actually ISIS--opposes ASSAD  that person is,  at least,  an ISIS AND TERRORIST SUPPORTER


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from?



Money and arms - from SA.  Training from other sunnis in the iraqi army.



> The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.



As for assad, are you so stupid and ignorant that you were not aware he was arming/funding anti-US fighters/terrorists in syria and allowing them to use syria as a base from which to attack US forces?

US mulling military options against Syria

"By now it has become clear that Damascus has opted out of its military accord with the Americans. The volume of fighting forces and war materiel crossing from Syria to Iraq has increased rather than diminished, and armed bands of tribesmen, among whom Iraqi insurgents, al Qaeda and Hizballah terrorists mingle, have expanded their control of broad regions on the Iraqi side of the border and aggressively attack any American force or vehicle venturing on their turf. Tribes dominating the border region are on the Iraqi insurgents’ payroll, receiving large weekly payments from Iraqi Baath headquarters in Damascus. *The Damascus center is the hub of the 4,000 ex-party leaders and army chiefs living in Syria. It awards the tribes a bonus for every attack they mount against American or Iraqi forces in the border vicinity, as well as a rake-off for every illegal transfer of weapons or explosives. Syrian regime high-ups, top military brass and officers stationed on the border also get their share of the cut. *

There have been several unpublicized battles between American and Syrian forces, when Syrian troops intervened to try and prevent the Americans from carrying out a hot pursuit of Iraqi insurgents at the border, Several Syrian soldiers have been killed and captured in these firefights, and senior leaders of the Anaza tribe taken prisoner. Six weeks ago US special-ops forces raided Anaza encampments, uncovering large volumes of weaponry destined for Iraq. They also discovered approximately 10 million dollars in cash and gold coin, and over a hundred terrorists in hiding."


----------



## Bleipriester

irosie91 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is not Syria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain blei argues that anything that does not support the kingly rule of  ASSAD----is ISIS.  ISIS is an evil force which opposes BAATHIST ASSAD.   If anyone who is not actually ISIS--opposes ASSAD  that person is,  at least,  an ISIS AND TERRORIST SUPPORTER
Click to expand...

It is the argumentation of ISIS stooges. Calling the war on ISIS ethnic cleansing, demonization of those fighting ISIS. Those most busy hating the Syrian government, like Roudy, irosie and the other Zionist warheads didn´t lose a negative word about ISIS so far...


----------



## irosie91

Bleipriester said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is not Syria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain blei argues that anything that does not support the kingly rule of  ASSAD----is ISIS.  ISIS is an evil force which opposes BAATHIST ASSAD.   If anyone who is not actually ISIS--opposes ASSAD  that person is,  at least,  an ISIS AND TERRORIST SUPPORTER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the argumentation of ISIS stooges. Calling the war on ISIS ethnic cleansing, demonization of those fighting ISIS. Those most busy hating the Syrian government, like Roudy, irosie and the other Zionist warheads didn´t lose a negative word about ISIS so far...
Click to expand...


Islamo Nazis do the libel thing incessantly no matter how idiotic the libel---something like playground sandbox snots who like to yell ---
"YOUR FEET STINK"        Capt blei's libel for anyone who does not lick Baathist ass is  
"YOU LOVE ISIS".    -----in the old  K K K south  the  big time "LIBEL" was    "N^&&*A LOVER"        islamonazis live on libels.   They  are used even in their incessant internecine
squabbles


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who ?     tell us what you  ""KNOW""
Click to expand...


Mainly the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They're the chief culprits. But other nations in the Middle East have contributed as well. For example, it's been proven Turkey has been buying ISIS oil for years. For some reason they wanted Assad out. My guess is, there's some valuable resources the Global Elites wanna plunder in Syria.

Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD
Click to expand...


True, but mainly by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They created brutal gangs like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And now they've created ISIS. So Americans better become resigned to the fact that they will be seeing their chickens come home to roost, in the form of more bloody terrorist attacks at home. It's inevitable.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who ?     tell us what you  ""KNOW""
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mainly the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They're the chief culprits. But other nations in the Middle East have contributed as well. For example, it's been proven Turkey has been buying ISIS oil for years. For some reason they wanted Assad out. My guess is, there's some valuable resources the Global Elites wanna plunder in Syria.
> 
> Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
Click to expand...


right-----the BIG CONSPIRACY OF THE PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY-------for more
----visit your local methadone clinic-----the addicts and acid heads talk about it all the time-----when I was a child---it was the burnt out alcoholics------they chatted incessantly on election day in the alleys near the closed liquor stores.      You have no background knowledge-----the turks hate ASSAD because he is an arab-----turks hate arabs.     Iranians hate arabs too. ------Russia is in the mix for SPHERE OF INFLUENCE----they don't really like anyone.    There is a GIANT PUSH  to get control of the OIL AND THE WATER WAYS-----and especially the PORT CITIES-----by Iran----and with RUSSIA doing a piggy back.   ALL MUSLIM "factions"  want the BLACK ROCK in Saudi arabia------it represents POWER OVER THE WHOLE  'Islamic world"----now you have the real information-----I doubt that it will help


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but mainly by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They created brutal gangs like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And now they've created ISIS. So Americans better become resigned to the fact that they will be seeing their chickens come home to roost, in the form of more bloody terrorist attacks at home. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...


your are suffering from a not so rare delusion----it is common amongst druggies,  alcoholics and under employed "white trash"


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but mainly by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They created brutal gangs like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And now they've created ISIS. So Americans better become resigned to the fact that they will be seeing their chickens come home to roost, in the form of more bloody terrorist attacks at home. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...


The Taliban were CREATED BY PAKISTAN----do you know any Pakistanis?    I do---lots for more than 45 years.    TALIBAN IS PAKISTANI ISLAM     The USA mistake is in IMAGINING that all the Taliban wanted was to HELP Afghanistan get rid of RUSSIAN INVADERS------the white house did not ask me-------The Taliban wanted   CALIPHATE IN AFGHANISTAN  very much like ISIS in Iraq.  We did it in the 1980s   OLIVER NORTH UNDERSTOOD.    Isis is islam-----it is the SAME islam as was the islam of OLD BAGHDAD and of   SHEHERAZADE and 1001 Arabian nights.   (never read that one either----did'ya?)


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money and arms - from SA.  Training from other sunnis in the iraqi army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for assad, are you so stupid and ignorant that you were not aware he was arming/funding anti-US fighters/terrorists in syria and allowing them to use syria as a base from which to attack US forces?
> 
> US mulling military options against Syria
> 
> "By now it has become clear that Damascus has opted out of its military accord with the Americans. The volume of fighting forces and war materiel crossing from Syria to Iraq has increased rather than diminished, and armed bands of tribesmen, among whom Iraqi insurgents, al Qaeda and Hizballah terrorists mingle, have expanded their control of broad regions on the Iraqi side of the border and aggressively attack any American force or vehicle venturing on their turf. Tribes dominating the border region are on the Iraqi insurgents’ payroll, receiving large weekly payments from Iraqi Baath headquarters in Damascus. *The Damascus center is the hub of the 4,000 ex-party leaders and army chiefs living in Syria. It awards the tribes a bonus for every attack they mount against American or Iraqi forces in the border vicinity, as well as a rake-off for every illegal transfer of weapons or explosives. Syrian regime high-ups, top military brass and officers stationed on the border also get their share of the cut. *
> 
> There have been several unpublicized battles between American and Syrian forces, when Syrian troops intervened to try and prevent the Americans from carrying out a hot pursuit of Iraqi insurgents at the border, Several Syrian soldiers have been killed and captured in these firefights, and senior leaders of the Anaza tribe taken prisoner. Six weeks ago US special-ops forces raided Anaza encampments, uncovering large volumes of weaponry destined for Iraq. They also discovered approximately 10 million dollars in cash and gold coin, and over a hundred terrorists in hiding."
Click to expand...


Their Civil War. None of our business. Yet we went in there in created awful brutal groups like ISIS. But it's merely a repeat of history. We did this back in Afghanistan when we funded & armed heinous murderers like Osama Bin Laden. In hindsight, we should just allowed the Soviets to have Afghanistan. There wouldn't have been a 9/11 and the bloody Jihad madness we're seeing today.


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who ?     tell us what you  ""KNOW""
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mainly the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They're the chief culprits. But other nations in the Middle East have contributed as well. For example, it's been proven Turkey has been buying ISIS oil for years. For some reason they wanted Assad out. My guess is, there's some valuable resources the Global Elites wanna plunder in Syria.
> 
> Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right-----the BIG CONSPIRACY OF THE PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY-------for more
> ----visit your local methadone clinic-----the addicts and acid heads talk about it all the time-----when I was a child---it was the burnt out alcoholics------they chatted incessantly on election day in the alleys near the closed liquor stores.      You have no background knowledge-----the turks hate ASSAD because he is an arab-----turks hate arabs.     Iranians hate arabs too. ------Russia is in the mix for SPHERE OF INFLUENCE----they don't really like anyone.    There is a GIANT PUSH  to get control of the OIL AND THE WATER WAYS-----and especially the PORT CITIES-----by Iran----and with RUSSIA doing a piggy back.   ALL MUSLIM "factions"  want the BLACK ROCK in Saudi arabia------it represents POWER OVER THE WHOLE  'Islamic world"----now you have the real information-----I doubt that it will help
Click to expand...


The logical conclusion is that there must be some very valuable resources the Global Elites wanna plunder in Syria. Assad and Syria was never a threat to the U.S./West or Saudi Arabia. Yet they've murdered so many Syrians. But it all will come back around on those nations at some point. Their Jihad chickens will come home to roost. Bet on it.


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but mainly by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They created brutal gangs like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And now they've created ISIS. So Americans better become resigned to the fact that they will be seeing their chickens come home to roost, in the form of more bloody terrorist attacks at home. It's inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your are suffering from a not so rare delusion----it is common amongst druggies,  alcoholics and under employed "white trash"
Click to expand...


Nah, you Warmongering Goose Steppers are the delusional folks. Your Government creates these deadly Terrorist gangs, and then y'all are shocked when they come back to bite you at home. Your Jihad chickens will come home to roost. That's just an inevitable fact.


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but mainly by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They created brutal gangs like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And now they've created ISIS. So Americans better become resigned to the fact that they will be seeing their chickens come home to roost, in the form of more bloody terrorist attacks at home. It's inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Taliban were CREATED BY PAKISTAN----do you know any Pakistanis?    I do---lots for more than 45 years.    TALIBAN IS PAKISTANI ISLAM     The USA mistake is in IMAGINING that all the Taliban wanted was to HELP Afghanistan get rid of RUSSIAN INVADERS------the white house did not ask me-------The Taliban wanted   CALIPHATE IN AFGHANISTAN  very much like ISIS in Iraq.  We did it in the 1980s   OLIVER NORTH UNDERSTOOD.    Isis is islam-----it is the SAME islam as was the islam of OLD BAGHDAD and of   SHEHERAZADE and 1001 Arabian nights.   (never read that one either----did'ya?)
Click to expand...


Yes good ole Pakistan, another one of our 'Good Buddies.' It is true the Taliban was created in Pakistan. It was then later moved to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. But most of its funding & arming in Afghanistan, came from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. But Pakistan did play a big role. 

And then of course you had brutal folks like Osama Bin Laden receiving all that cash & weapons from the Americans and Saudis too. It all led to the defeat of the Soviets and the rapid rise of Radical Islam around the world. And the U.S. is mainly responsible for that. Without U.S. support for awful terror groups, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 and Jihad madness we see today.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think ISIS received all its funding, arming, and training from? The money and weapons didn't just magically appear. It was all about 'Regime Changing' Assad. Just more bloody Blow Back. Time to disengage from the Middle East. We've done enough damage there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS is funded the same way it is  "peopled"---THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but mainly by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. They created brutal gangs like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. And now they've created ISIS. So Americans better become resigned to the fact that they will be seeing their chickens come home to roost, in the form of more bloody terrorist attacks at home. It's inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Taliban were CREATED BY PAKISTAN----do you know any Pakistanis?    I do---lots for more than 45 years.    TALIBAN IS PAKISTANI ISLAM     The USA mistake is in IMAGINING that all the Taliban wanted was to HELP Afghanistan get rid of RUSSIAN INVADERS------the white house did not ask me-------The Taliban wanted   CALIPHATE IN AFGHANISTAN  very much like ISIS in Iraq.  We did it in the 1980s   OLIVER NORTH UNDERSTOOD.    Isis is islam-----it is the SAME islam as was the islam of OLD BAGHDAD and of   SHEHERAZADE and 1001 Arabian nights.   (never read that one either----did'ya?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes good ole Pakistan, another one of our 'Good Buddies.' It is true the Taliban was created in Pakistan. It was then later moved to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. But most of its funding & arming in Afghanistan, came from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. But Pakistan did play a big role.
> 
> And then of course you had brutal folks like Osama Bin Laden receiving all that cash & weapons from the Americans and Saudis too. It all led to the defeat of the Soviets and the rapid rise of Radical Islam around the world. And the U.S. is mainly responsible for that. Without U.S. support for awful terror groups, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 and Jihad madness we see today.
Click to expand...


well----actually you are very partially right-----the US funded the filth called TALIBAN----but the Taliban are PAKISTANIS and most of their funding came from OTHER MUSLIMS----including Saudi muslims.   The US did not MAKE the Taliban-----the US very FOOLISHLY gave those mobsters armaments and funding in order to get rid of the Russians ---BIG MISTAKE-----the white house did not ask me.   The white house learned to regret what they did------and is coming to regret the USA   "love the refugees" program


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.



Too fucking stupid for my tastes.

Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.

If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.


----------



## Bleipriester

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
Click to expand...

When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
Click to expand...


Syria always opposed the war in Iraq. And in hindsight, it was 100% justified. Look at what the U.S. and others have done to Syria. It had good reason not to trust the Americans and Saudis. 

But regardless, the U.S. had no valid or legal justification for declaring 'Regime Change' and intervening in Syria's Civil War. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia especially, should be required to pay War Reparations to the Syrian People.


----------



## paulitician

Bleipriester said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
Click to expand...


Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding. 

It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syria always opposed the war in Iraq. And in hindsight, it was 100% justified. Look at what the U.S. and others have done to Syria. It had good reason not to trust the Americans and Saudis.
> 
> But regardless, the U.S. had no valid or legal justification for declaring 'Regime Change' and intervening in Syria's Civil War. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia especially, should be required to pay War Reparations to the Syrian People.
Click to expand...


I am LOOKING   what has the US   "DONE"  in Syria?      When did the US start doing it?   
I live in a part of the USA that has harbored LOTS AND LOTS of Syrians -----since I was a little kid----1950s.     They are real Syrians----generally speak Arabic. ------do Arabic things like make Arabic food and deal in Arabic products when they have stores or go shopping in stores.     Those I knew as a child were ESCAPING  the place called Syria----since they were mostly Christians-----as a very little kid I decided that they were running away from NAZIS


----------



## irosie91

LOL----BS       Fartimah and Aisha created AL QUAEDA


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syria always opposed the war in Iraq. And in hindsight, it was 100% justified. Look at what the U.S. and others have done to Syria. It had good reason not to trust the Americans and Saudis.
> 
> But regardless, the U.S. had no valid or legal justification for declaring 'Regime Change' and intervening in Syria's Civil War. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia especially, should be required to pay War Reparations to the Syrian People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am LOOKING   what has the US   "DONE"  in Syria?      When did the US start doing it?
> I live in a part of the USA that has harbored LOTS AND LOTS of Syrians -----since I was a little kid----1950s.     They are real Syrians----generally speak Arabic. ------do Arabic things like make Arabic food and deal in Arabic products when they have stores or go shopping in stores.     Those I knew as a child were ESCAPING  the place called Syria----since they were mostly Christians-----as a very little kid I decided that they were running away from NAZIS
Click to expand...


There was no valid or legal justification for declaring 'Regime Change' and intervening in Syria's Civil War. Syria had good reason not to trust the Americans and Saudis. Look what they did to Iraq. Assad suspected he would be targeted next. And that's exactly what happened. 

If not for Russia and Iran, ISIS would have taken Syria. We need to stop all the meddling and creating horrific Frankensteins like Al Qaeda and ISIS. It's time for a revolutionary change in our Foreign Policy.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding.
> 
> It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.
Click to expand...


whether  ISIS has Syria or the  RUSSIAN, IRANIAN, SHITE/ALAWITE AXIS has Syria -----------is six of one and half dozen of the other.       Something like   ADOLF   vs  POL POT


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> LOL----BS       Fartimah and Aisha created AL QUAEDA



LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.


----------



## Bleipriester

paulitician said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding.
> 
> It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.
Click to expand...

The imminent threat was al-Qaeda taking over northern Syria. All that shitty groups gathered in the "Army of Conquest" and took some parts of Idlib still under government control while another terrorist Latakia offensive launched from Turkey was expected.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS       Fartimah and Aisha created AL QUAEDA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.
Click to expand...


wrong again------al Qaeda is----very simply----that which was founded by muhummad---and aggravated into feuding groups by his nutty ambitious daughters------Fartimah and Aisha---
read the koran and learn some history     Bin laden was bin laden entirely UNFUNDED by the USA -----Taliban is Taliban by virtue of the
Pakistani sunni grammar school curriculum ----Isis is Isis by virtue of the muslim grammar school curriculum-------Islamic terrorism has been going on for 1400 years------the AID it got was that  Europeans found out that FOSSIL FUELS  ------are the very best for ENERGY


----------



## Bleipriester

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding.
> 
> It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whether  ISIS has Syria or the  RUSSIAN, IRANIAN, SHITE/ALAWITE AXIS has Syria -----------is six of one and half dozen of the other.       Something like   ADOLF   vs  POL POT
Click to expand...

More bullshit by irosie.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bleipriester said:


> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...



Al Qaeda didn't exist when the Soviets were still around. And no, the Wahhabi radicals are not a creation of the USA. The British did put them in charge of Saudi Arabia, but the USA had virtually no say in the matter.  Al Qaeda did not form from the Afghani Muja, despite the bullshit conspiracy theorists like to peddle.


----------



## irosie91

It was US aid that caused the death of   Mr.  Fartimah bint muhummad------to wit   ALI-----
after which all hell broke loose in the entire world of   ISLAM


----------



## Bleipriester

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Qaeda didn't exist when the Soviets were still around. And no, the Wahhabi radicals are not a creation of the USA. The British did put them in charge of Saudi Arabia, but the USA had virtually no say in the matter.  Al Qaeda did not form from the Afghani Muja, despite the bullshit conspiracy theorists like to peddle.
Click to expand...

The Brits indeed invented Wahabism but it was the US train and equip program in Afghanistan that attracted Bin Laden and where he formed his Mujahideen (translation: fighting in Jihad), later known as al-Qaeda, with US help.


----------



## paulitician

Bleipriester said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For some reason they wanted Assad out...Because clearly, Assad and Syria have never committed a hostile act against the U.S. or Saudi Arabia. So why the frantic rush to kill him? Gotta be a whole lotta cash involved. There's no other logical reason for creating these brutal groups and intervening in Syria's Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too fucking stupid for my tastes.
> 
> Retard, i showed a link at the bottom of the prior page where assad was allowing the sunni insurgency against the US in iraq to operate out of damascus for years, even providing a safe harbor and other support for them.
> 
> If you are going to keep posting crap without any facts, you'll be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding.
> 
> It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The imminent threat was al-Qaeda taking over northern Syria. All that shitty groups gathered in the "Army of Conquest" and took some parts of Idlib still under government control while another terrorist Latakia offensive launched from Turkey was expected.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's been proven Turkey was buying ISIS-seized oil all along. Turkey, another one of our 'Good Buddies', has been helping ISIS for awhile. It's just another sad bloody mess in the Middle East. We need to sop all the meddling and disengage from the region. We've created enough horrific chaos over there.


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS       Fartimah and Aisha created AL QUAEDA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong again------al Qaeda is----very simply----that which was founded by muhummad---and aggravated into feuding groups by his nutty ambitious daughters------Fartimah and Aisha---
> read the koran and learn some history     Bin laden was bin laden entirely UNFUNDED by the USA -----Taliban is Taliban by virtue of the
> Pakistani sunni grammar school curriculum ----Isis is Isis by virtue of the muslim grammar school curriculum-------Islamic terrorism has been going on for 1400 years------the AID it got was that  Europeans found out that FOSSIL FUELS  ------are the very best for ENERGY
Click to expand...


Radical Islam has gotten a whole lotta help from the US/West and Saudi Arabia. They've been the chief creators and financiers of radical Islamic groups around the world.


----------



## irosie91

paulitician said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS       Fartimah and Aisha created AL QUAEDA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong again------al Qaeda is----very simply----that which was founded by muhummad---and aggravated into feuding groups by his nutty ambitious daughters------Fartimah and Aisha---
> read the koran and learn some history     Bin laden was bin laden entirely UNFUNDED by the USA -----Taliban is Taliban by virtue of the
> Pakistani sunni grammar school curriculum ----Isis is Isis by virtue of the muslim grammar school curriculum-------Islamic terrorism has been going on for 1400 years------the AID it got was that  Europeans found out that FOSSIL FUELS  ------are the very best for ENERGY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Radical Islam has gotten a whole lotta help from the US/West and Saudi Arabia. They've been the chief creators and financiers of radical Islamic groups around the world.
Click to expand...


you never met a Pakistani-----have you?    You have never heard of Shiite sluts with bombs on their asses-----have you?
Afghanistan was invaded by Russians in 1979 and at THAT POINT------afghani tribesmen gathered themselves into the MUJIHADEEN movement--------eager sunnis from other places JOINED up-----far more into developing a UTOPIAN SHARIAH SHIT HOLE than----were---actually the Afghanis themselves-----among them were the TALIBAN FROM PAKISTAN------
It was not until the MID 1980s that Bin Laden joined the Fray---also eager to turn Afghanistan into a  SHARIA UTOPIA_-------and around that time---the US gave some support to the
NATIVE AFGHANI MUJAHADIN------(ie afghanis)  but not directly to bin laden----Of course the Pakistani Taliban benefited. -----By the time The USA realized that  bin laden and Taliban both stank to high heaven they were well into their thing with SUNNI SUPPORT WORLD WIDE.   Afghani mujahidin are a manifestation of ISLAM----Taliban are a manifestation of Pakistani islam and much loved in Pakistan.   ----even chechens popped into join the development of the shariah UTOPIA in Afghanistan----------all muslim project----but not beloved by the government of Saudi arabia-----just lots of the oil rich pigs


----------



## paulitician

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your government launches another Boeing against your house, you will use your last seconds to blame it on Assad. Al-Qaeda fought the Soviets for you, they did 9/11 for you and now they are fighting Syria for you. It was even created by you.
> And you retarded bubblehead blame it on Assad...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Qaeda didn't exist when the Soviets were still around. And no, the Wahhabi radicals are not a creation of the USA. The British did put them in charge of Saudi Arabia, but the USA had virtually no say in the matter.  Al Qaeda did not form from the Afghani Muja, despite the bullshit conspiracy theorists like to peddle.
Click to expand...


Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA's payroll. So were many other murderous thugs in Afghanistan. They sold their souls to the devil to oust the Soviets. And boy are we paying the price for that today. They just repeated history by creating ISIS to 'Regime Change' Assad. 

The US/West and Saudi Arabia have used radical thugs to do their bidding for many years. So Americans better not be shocked, but rather fully expect the chickens to come home to roost. Because it is gonna happen. It's a logical inevitability.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bleipriester said:


> [
> The Brits indeed invented Wahabism



What utter nonsense, Wahhabism arose in the 19th century, while Mecca was controlled by the Ottomans. The Brits merely (and foolishly) gave them control of the area as they viewed them as a priest caste empowered to protect the holy sites of Islam.



> but it was the US train and equip program in Afghanistan that attracted Bin Laden and where he formed his Mujahideen (translation: fighting in Jihad), later known as al-Qaeda, with US help.



More ignorant nonsense. Osama bin Laden (it's a title, Osama of the Laden clan) was a radical who eschewed his family wealth and went to Afghanistan to join with the already existing Muja. The Mujahadeen did NOT openly accept the Saudi, and he spent his time as a financier, using the money he claimed to despise, to support the real fighters. The Muja were formed of 5 competing groups, none of which were the foreign fighters.. When civil war broke out, Osama took off to Africa. One faction, the Taliban, eventually took control. Not Al Qaeda, but the Pushtan based Taliban.

Learn some history before making posts.

Oh, and Rosie is right, Al-Qaeds goes back to the roots of Islam and the Sunni - Shia split. It is astoundingly arrogant of Osama to have taken that name for his group.


----------



## paulitician

irosie91 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS       Fartimah and Aisha created AL QUAEDA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong again------al Qaeda is----very simply----that which was founded by muhummad---and aggravated into feuding groups by his nutty ambitious daughters------Fartimah and Aisha---
> read the koran and learn some history     Bin laden was bin laden entirely UNFUNDED by the USA -----Taliban is Taliban by virtue of the
> Pakistani sunni grammar school curriculum ----Isis is Isis by virtue of the muslim grammar school curriculum-------Islamic terrorism has been going on for 1400 years------the AID it got was that  Europeans found out that FOSSIL FUELS  ------are the very best for ENERGY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Radical Islam has gotten a whole lotta help from the US/West and Saudi Arabia. They've been the chief creators and financiers of radical Islamic groups around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you never met a Pakistani-----have you?    You have never heard of Shiite sluts with bombs on their asses-----have you?
> Afghanistan was invaded by Russians in 1979 and at THAT POINT------afghani tribesmen gathered themselves into the MUJIHADEEN movement--------
Click to expand...


In hindsight, we should have allowed the Soviets to have Afghanistan. No 9/11 or the Jihad madness we're seeing throughout the world. It was another Blow Back blunder.


----------



## Bleipriester

Uncensored2008 said:


> What utter nonsense, Wahhabism arose in the 19th century, while Mecca was controlled by the Ottomans. The Brits merely (and foolishly) gave them control of the area as they viewed them as a priest caste empowered to protect the holy sites of Islam.


It is true. They used it to make them do foolish things in favor of their empire.




Uncensored2008 said:


> More ignorant nonsense. Osama bin Laden (it's a title, Osama of the Laden clan) was a radical who eschewed his family wealth and went to Afghanistan to join with the already existing Muja. The Mujahadeen did NOT openly accept the Saudi, and he spent his time as a financier, using the money he claimed to despise, to support the real fighters. The Muja were formed of 5 competing groups, none of which were the foreign fighters.. When civil war broke out, Osama took off to Africa. One faction, the Taliban, eventually took control. Not Al Qaeda, but the Pushtan based Taliban.
> 
> Lean some history before making posts.
> 
> Oh, and Rosie is right, Al-Qaeds goes back to the roots of Islam and the Sunni - Shia split. It is astoundingly arrogant of Osama to have taken that name for his group.



"Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan."
BBC NEWS  | South Asia  | Who is Osama Bin Laden?

The Insider | CIA created al-Qaeda and gave $3 BILLION to Osama bin Laden


----------



## Uncensored2008

paulitician said:


> [
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA's payroll.



False, the opposite of the truth.

First off, Osama had access to billions, what would he need money from the CIA for?

Regardless, what Osama brought to the the Mujahadeen was cash. They let him play because he could pay.



> So were many other murderous thugs in Afghanistan. They sold their souls to the devil to oust the Soviets. And boy are we paying the price for that today. They just repeated history by creating ISIS to 'Regime Change' Assad.
> 
> The US/West and Saudi Arabia have used radical thugs to do their bidding for many years. So Americans better not be shocked, but rather fully expect the chickens to come home to roost. Because it is gonna happen. It's a logical inevitability.



An interesting "history" you offer.

Virtually no truth to any of it, though.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bleipriester said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What utter nonsense, Wahhabism arose in the 19th century, while Mecca was controlled by the Ottomans. The Brits merely (and foolishly) gave them control of the area as they viewed them as a priest caste empowered to protect the holy sites of Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true. They used it to make them do foolish things in favor of their empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More ignorant nonsense. Osama bin Laden (it's a title, Osama of the Laden clan) was a radical who eschewed his family wealth and went to Afghanistan to join with the already existing Muja. The Mujahadeen did NOT openly accept the Saudi, and he spent his time as a financier, using the money he claimed to despise, to support the real fighters. The Muja were formed of 5 competing groups, none of which were the foreign fighters.. When civil war broke out, Osama took off to Africa. One faction, the Taliban, eventually took control. Not Al Qaeda, but the Pushtan based Taliban.
> 
> Lean some history before making posts.
> 
> Oh, and Rosie is right, Al-Qaeds goes back to the roots of Islam and the Sunni - Shia split. It is astoundingly arrogant of Osama to have taken that name for his group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
> 
> The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan."
> BBC NEWS  | South Asia  | Who is Osama Bin Laden?
> 
> The Insider | CIA created al-Qaeda and gave $3 BILLION to Osama bin Laden
Click to expand...



Moronic conspiracy theory bullshit.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Syria always opposed the war in Iraq.



Who gives a fuck what they supported/opposed?  They were harboring, financing and aiding terrorists killing americans in iraq.  I guess to c.unts like you, making a political point is more important than defending fellow americans.

assad is welcome to his own opinion; he was NOT welcome to sustaining a guerilla war against the US - and should have been destroyed back then.



> But regardless, the U.S. had no valid or legal justification for declaring 'Regime Change' and intervening in Syria's Civil War. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia especially, should be required to pay War Reparations to the Syrian People.



Wrong shit for brains, at the end of the civil war if there is any justice assad will be hanged, and iran will pay reparations for helping slaughter 500K syrians so as to keep their pet in power to rule over the 85% of the population that hated him.  You're as big a fucking idiot as I've seen on this board, ever - and I've been here a long time.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding.



The only reason I can think of someone willing to look as fucking stupid as you on a public forum is money, but whoever is paying you is not getting their money's worth.

ISIS DID NOT EVEN FUCKING APPEAR in the syrian uprising for YEARS after it started, asshole moron.  Had assad not started massacring the civilian population, a rational, sane government could have been initiated, but then assad and his cronies would not have been able to rape the country of its finances any longer.

Funny how fucking scumbags like you attack Israel/US for non-democratic actions, but support the world's worst dictatorial vermin like assad.



> It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.



You're too unintelligent and honestly, below me for me to respond any longer.  Anyone who thinks that ISIS=al qaeda is way, way too fucking stupid to be allowed to post on a political forum.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.



Right idiot asshole, because other than al qaeda there's no other arab muslim terrorist groups operating over the past 50 years...you fucking low IQ asshole moron.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Yeah, it's been proven Turkey was buying ISIS-seized oil all along. Turkey, another one of our 'Good Buddies', has been helping ISIS for awhile. It's just another sad bloody mess in the Middle East. We need to sop all the meddling and disengage from the region. We've created enough horrific chaos over there.



Yay, let's keep changing the subject because we're too fucking stupid to defend any of our moronic conspiracy theories...wow you are a fucking idiot.


----------



## paulitician

Uncensored2008 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA's payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, the opposite of the truth.
> 
> First off, Osama had access to billions, what would he need money from the CIA for?
> 
> Regardless, what Osama brought to the the Mujahadeen was cash. They let him play because he could pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were many other murderous thugs in Afghanistan. They sold their souls to the devil to oust the Soviets. And boy are we paying the price for that today. They just repeated history by creating ISIS to 'Regime Change' Assad.
> 
> The US/West and Saudi Arabia have used radical thugs to do their bidding for many years. So Americans better not be shocked, but rather fully expect the chickens to come home to roost. Because it is gonna happen. It's a logical inevitability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An interesting "history" you offer.
> 
> Virtually no truth to any of it, though.
Click to expand...


Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syria always opposed the war in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what they supported/opposed?  They were harboring, financing and aiding terrorists killing americans in iraq.  I guess to c.unts like you, making a political point is more important than defending fellow americans.
> 
> assad is welcome to his own opinion; he was NOT welcome to sustaining a guerilla war against the US - and should have been destroyed back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, the U.S. had no valid or legal justification for declaring 'Regime Change' and intervening in Syria's Civil War. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia especially, should be required to pay War Reparations to the Syrian People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong shit for brains, at the end of the civil war if there is any justice assad will be hanged, and iran will pay reparations for helping slaughter 500K syrians so as to keep their pet in power to rule over the 85% of the population that hated him.  You're as big a fucking idiot as I've seen on this board, ever - and I've been here a long time.
Click to expand...


Boy, you sure are all in on that American Government/Corporate Media propaganda thing. The U.S. is the main cause of all the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. It had no valid or legal justification to declare 'Regime Change' and intervene in Syria's Civil War. Period, end of story.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if Russia and Iran hadn't intervened, ISIS would have taken Syria. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. Our Government continues to create brutal Frankensteins to do its bidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I can think of someone willing to look as fucking stupid as you on a public forum is money, but whoever is paying you is not getting their money's worth.
> 
> ISIS DID NOT EVEN FUCKING APPEAR in the syrian uprising for YEARS after it started, asshole moron.  Had assad not started massacring the civilian population, a rational, sane government could have been initiated, but then assad and his cronies would not have been able to rape the country of its finances any longer.
> 
> Funny how fucking scumbags like you attack Israel/US for non-democratic actions, but support the world's worst dictatorial vermin like assad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It started with creating Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and has continued right up to creating ISIS to kill Assad. ISIS was the 'Good Guy in Syria, as long as it stuck to getting Assad. But as usual, Blow Back blew in and they were declared the 'Bad Guy' in Iraq. It's an awful Foreign Policy. It has to be changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too unintelligent and honestly, below me for me to respond any longer.  Anyone who thinks that ISIS=al qaeda is way, way too fucking stupid to be allowed to post on a political forum.
Click to expand...


It was Syria's Civil war. It was none of our business. Obviously our meddling has made things so much worse over there. Many many more Syrians have been killed because of our support and creation of brutal groups like ISIS. It's time for big change in our Foreign Policy. No more 'Regime Change' meddling Bullshit.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL----BS  Without massive US/Saudi/Pakistani funding, arming and training, there would have never been an Al Qaeda. Hence, no 9/11 and Jihad insanity we're seeing throughout the world today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right idiot asshole, because other than al qaeda there's no other arab muslim terrorist groups operating over the past 50 years...you fucking low IQ asshole moron.
Click to expand...


Which one murdered and maimed thousands of Americans on 9/11? Right idiot asshole, the one your own Government created. But don't worry, all you warmongering bastards are gonna see more of your chickens coming home to roost. You think it ends with 9/11? Think again. Unless we dramatically change our Foreign Policy, there's gonna be lots more chickens coming home to roost.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's been proven Turkey was buying ISIS-seized oil all along. Turkey, another one of our 'Good Buddies', has been helping ISIS for awhile. It's just another sad bloody mess in the Middle East. We need to sop all the meddling and disengage from the region. We've created enough horrific chaos over there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yay, let's keep changing the subject because we're too fucking stupid to defend any of our moronic conspiracy theories...wow you are a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


It has been proven Turkey was helping ISIS in Syria. It was providing logistical and financial support.


----------



## Uncensored2008

paulitician said:


> Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.



You fringies create an alternative reality that you eventually begin to believe. There is no historical fact to the nonsense you so desperately cling to. Under Jimmy Carter, the USA began supplying the Mujahadeen with arm, particularly the Stinger hand held SAM that could down a KA-50 Hokum, the Russian gun ships that were shredding the Afghan resistance. The CIA provided training on these and other arms.

Osama bin Laden was not involved in these efforts or training. 

Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## paulitician

Uncensored2008 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fringies create an alternative reality that you eventually begin to believe. There is no historical fact to the nonsense you so desperately cling to. Under Jimmy Carter, the USA began supplying the Mujahadeen with arm, particularly the Stinger hand held SAM that could down a KA-50 Hokum, the Russian gun ships that were shredding the Afghan resistance. The CIA provided training on these and other arms.
> 
> Osama bin Laden was not involved in these efforts or training.
> 
> Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


No, those assertions are preposterous. Of course Bin Laden's group received money, weapons, and training from American/Saudi/Pakistani intelligence agencies. It was vital to the effort to oust the Soviets. Bin Laden's group was just one of many radical Islamist groups to receive American support.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fringies create an alternative reality that you eventually begin to believe. There is no historical fact to the nonsense you so desperately cling to. Under Jimmy Carter, the USA began supplying the Mujahadeen with arm, particularly the Stinger hand held SAM that could down a KA-50 Hokum, the Russian gun ships that were shredding the Afghan resistance. The CIA provided training on these and other arms.
> 
> Osama bin Laden was not involved in these efforts or training.
> 
> Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those assertions are preposterous. Of course Bin Laden's group received money, weapons, and training from American/Saudi/Pakistani intelligence agencies. It was vital to the effort to oust the Soviets. Bin Laden's group was just one of many radical Islamist groups to receive American support.
Click to expand...


Idiot, the taliban is not al qaeda you stupid fucking bottom-feeding moron.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Boy, you sure are all in on that American Government/Corporate Media propaganda thing. The U.S. is the main cause of all the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. It had no valid or legal justification to declare 'Regime Change' and intervene in Syria's Civil War. Period, end of story.



Stupid asshole, who has been barrel-bombing whole cities for YEARS?  That was assad.

Moron, who sent in militias to slaughter women and children at Houla and Baniyas? That was assad.

Fucking retard, it would be so much better if pieces of shit like you just stopped posting.


----------



## rhodescholar

Uncensored2008 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fringies create an alternative reality that you eventually begin to believe. There is no historical fact to the nonsense you so desperately cling to. Under Jimmy Carter, the USA began supplying the Mujahadeen with arm, particularly the Stinger hand held SAM that could down a KA-50 Hokum, the Russian gun ships that were shredding the Afghan resistance. The CIA provided training on these and other arms.
> 
> Osama bin Laden was not involved in these efforts or training.
> 
> Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


There is a stark similarity of the posts from low IQ filth like that poster, and many others who claim the US started the syrian war, defend assad/iran/russia, etc. I believe that they are pro-putin russian internet trolling turds who are trying to misinform and misdirect the facts about assad, iran and russian tactics which have killed over 500K people there, and caused millions of refugees.


----------



## Sally

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but don't bother. Most Americans can't and won't accept the fact the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created ISIS. They created it to 'Regime Change' Assad. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been the chief financiers of radical Islamic groups for many years. It dates all the way back to Afghanistan and the Soviets. What later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, were created by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to oust the Soviets.
> 
> They just repeated the process in Syria with the creation of ISIS. They've used these brutal groups to do their bidding for years. But unfortunately, war is all Americans know. They're indoctrinated on supporting endless war. And then they're shocked when terrorist attacks happen at home. What do they expect? Of course chickens are gonna come home to roost. That's the logical expected result. But you can't reason with most of em. It's very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have requested multiple times from uninformed, conspiracy theory-driven dimwits like this to explain exactly how the "US created ISIS" - and they never succeed, no surprise there.  There seems to be segments of the population who will blame every bad aspect of the mideast on the US, no matter how fucking awful the people there behave.
> 
> As an aside, there are few funnier things than a rabid ron paul fanatic claiming other people cannot be reasoned with...just hilarious.
Click to expand...



Since ISIS is backed by those Iraqi Generals who were dismissed after the Iraq War, who knows how much money they had stashed away during the Saddam Hussein's regime.  Does anyone honestly think that all those coming from different parts of the world to join ISIS would have been able to conquer all that territory if they weren't led by experienced military men.  Probably if these generals had been kept on, there would never have been any group called ISIS.  As for weapons, there are arms dealers all over who will sell arms to anyone willing to pay for them.

As it was stated by ISIS when they first appeared on the scene, that Syria was the stepping stone to the new Caliphate.  They saw the chaos in Syria due to the Civil War, and saw their chance then to begin their start on their dream of a Caliphate.

There are many articles on the Internet about the leaders of ISIS being ex-Iraqi generals.  Here is one of them.

How Disbanding the Iraqi Army Fueled ISIS


----------



## skye

War with Syria!

NO!

A resounding NO!

got it?


----------



## skye

There is no need for a war with Syria!

Everybody who says otherwise is a warmonger!


NO NEED FOR A WAR WITH SYRIA!


----------



## rhodescholar

Sally said:


> Since ISIS is backed by those Iraqi Generals who were dismissed after the Iraq War, who knows how much money they had stashed away during the Saddam Hussein's regime.  Does anyone honestly think that all those coming from different parts of the world to join ISIS would have been able to conquer all that territory if they weren't led by experienced military men.  Probably if these generals had been kept on, there would never have been any group called ISIS.  As for weapons, there are arms dealers all over who will sell arms to anyone willing to pay for them.
> 
> As it was stated by ISIS when they first appeared on the scene, that Syria was the stepping stone to the new Caliphate.  They saw the chaos in Syria due to the Civil War, and saw their chance then to begin their start on their dream of a Caliphate.
> 
> There are many articles on the Internet about the leaders of ISIS being ex-Iraqi generals.  Here is one of them.
> 
> How Disbanding the Iraqi Army Fueled ISIS



I agree with this but think as usual, the problem was with iran who whipped up and forced the iraqi shias to demand the army be disbanded.  They wanted it gone so they would have (like hez in lebanon) a weak national army to give them a free hand to stir up trouble and intimidate the sunnis without fearing any blowback.  They wanted to be able to kill politicians, journalists and activists in iraq who would challenge them, ethnically cleanse sunnis out of various cities/regions, and be able to operate under iran's controlling hand without the threat of a national army.  And they wanted to be able to force lots of sunnis out of government bureaucratic positions - which they did - which also led to a lot of anger and support to form ISIS, which was primarily a response to the iranian-driven sunni oppression in iraq.

Had the US told iran to fuck off, retained the national army, and crushed all of the shia militias, the sunnis would have remained empowered and not felt a need to form a group to protect them like ISIS.  But the shit lazy media, and anti-american filth, prefer to lie and tell people that ISIS was "started by the US" - which is absolute garbage.


----------



## rhodescholar

skye said:


> War with Syria!
> 
> NO!
> 
> A resounding NO!
> 
> got it?



Got what? That you are incapable of a rational sentence?


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fringies create an alternative reality that you eventually begin to believe. There is no historical fact to the nonsense you so desperately cling to. Under Jimmy Carter, the USA began supplying the Mujahadeen with arm, particularly the Stinger hand held SAM that could down a KA-50 Hokum, the Russian gun ships that were shredding the Afghan resistance. The CIA provided training on these and other arms.
> 
> Osama bin Laden was not involved in these efforts or training.
> 
> Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those assertions are preposterous. Of course Bin Laden's group received money, weapons, and training from American/Saudi/Pakistani intelligence agencies. It was vital to the effort to oust the Soviets. Bin Laden's group was just one of many radical Islamist groups to receive American support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot, the taliban is not al qaeda you stupid fucking bottom-feeding moron.
Click to expand...


They basically merged at one point dummy. And they both did receive support from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure are all in on that American Government/Corporate Media propaganda thing. The U.S. is the main cause of all the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. It had no valid or legal justification to declare 'Regime Change' and intervene in Syria's Civil War. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid asshole, who has been barrel-bombing whole cities for YEARS?  That was assad.
> 
> Moron, who sent in militias to slaughter women and children at Houla and Baniyas? That was assad.
> 
> Fucking retard, it would be so much better if pieces of shit like you just stopped posting.
Click to expand...


It's their Civil War. The U.S. had no valid or legal justification to intervene. I truly believe we need to disengage from the Middle East at this point. We are the source of most of the bloody chaos there. We don't belong in those lands. Time to come home.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden's group and other radical groups worked closely with the CIA in Afghanistan. They couldn't have defeated the Soviets without the CIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fringies create an alternative reality that you eventually begin to believe. There is no historical fact to the nonsense you so desperately cling to. Under Jimmy Carter, the USA began supplying the Mujahadeen with arm, particularly the Stinger hand held SAM that could down a KA-50 Hokum, the Russian gun ships that were shredding the Afghan resistance. The CIA provided training on these and other arms.
> 
> Osama bin Laden was not involved in these efforts or training.
> 
> Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a stark similarity of the posts from low IQ filth like that poster, and many others who claim the US started the syrian war, defend assad/iran/russia, etc. I believe that they are pro-putin russian internet trolling turds who are trying to misinform and misdirect the facts about assad, iran and russian tactics which have killed over 500K people there, and caused millions of refugees.
Click to expand...


Why did the U.S. intervene in Syria's Civil War? Assad never committed a hostile act against his neighbors or the U.S. We went over there and created horrific gangs like ISIS and decimated that country. But why?

Because it's all about getting that Puppet Regime in there and plundering resources. Syria must have something the Western Global Elites want very badly. The Syrian Civil War was never any of our business. We shouldn't have gotten involved. Now more chickens are gonna come home to roost as a result. Bloody Blow Back is coming.


----------



## paulitician

skye said:


> War with Syria!
> 
> NO!
> 
> A resounding NO!
> 
> got it?



Unfortunately, that ship sailed a long time ago. We've been bombing & killing in Syria for awhile now. Someone dug this old post up. But at the time, it was clear most Americans didn't want anything to do with war in Syria. However, the Global Elites eventually got their war anyway. They always do. They'll always come up with a Boogeyman for the Sheeple to fear & hate. It's ISIS today, but it'll be another flavor of the week Boogeyman tomorrow.

It's all about the Permanent War and plundering resources. The Elites have found that endless war keeps the Sheeple in line. They believe keeping the Sheeple in fear helps convince them to support all wars, all the time. And i have to say, they're 100% correct on that assessment. The Sheeple, especially American Sheeple, will support any war just as long as it doesn't interrupt stuffing their fat faces, watching their porn/sports/reality tv, social media addictions, and so on. Fear works. The Elites have proven that, with the overwhelming American support for Permanent War.


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> Why did the U.S. intervene in Syria's Civil War? Assad never committed a hostile act against his neighbors or the U.S.



Asshole, how many times do you plan to state this lie?


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the U.S. intervene in Syria's Civil War? Assad never committed a hostile act against his neighbors or the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, how many times do you plan to state this lie?
Click to expand...


List all the nations Syria has invaded and bombed. Then compare that list with your own Nation's list. Syria was never a threat to its neighbors or the U.S. So why try to kill Assad?


----------



## rhodescholar

paulitician said:


> List all the nations Syria has invaded and bombed. Then compare that list with your own Nation's list. Syria was never a threat to its neighbors or the U.S. So why try to kill Assad?



Why do low life, low IQ, worthless pieces of shit like you screech about every little action the US - but then twist themselves like pretzels trying to defend even the most egregious ones by enemies of the US?

I already stated - with a link - how syria/assad harbored/funded/armed terrorists attacking US troops inside iraq for years.  The HQ of the terrorist insurgency was held in damascus.  Those actions are tantamount to declarations of war, and assad is fortunate the US did not terminate his regime for them.


----------



## paulitician

rhodescholar said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> List all the nations Syria has invaded and bombed. Then compare that list with your own Nation's list. Syria was never a threat to its neighbors or the U.S. So why try to kill Assad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do low life, low IQ, worthless pieces of shit like you screech about every little action the US - but then twist themselves like pretzels trying to defend even the most egregious ones by enemies of the US?
> 
> I already stated - with a link - how syria/assad harbored/funded/armed terrorists attacking US troops inside iraq for years.  The HQ of the terrorist insurgency was held in damascus.  Those actions are tantamount to declarations of war, and assad is fortunate the US did not terminate his regime for them.
Click to expand...


Bullshite. Syria merely opposed the Iraq War like some of our own allies did. And it was absolutely right to oppose it. It was a bloody horrific blunder. The U.S. had no right to invade Iraq, or declare 'Regime Change' on Assad.

In fact, some U.S./Western leaders should have been arrested and tried for War Crimes. They committed horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. If the U.S/West didn't own the International Justice System, those arrests would have happened.


----------



## candycorn

Redfish said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!
> 
> Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??
> 
> Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breaking NEWS*
> 
> U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, once again we declare ourselves the world's morality police and put our citizens at risk.
> 
> Every congressman who votes for this lunacy should be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...


And your feelings now, Trump bot?


----------



## TooTall

paulitician said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> List all the nations Syria has invaded and bombed. Then compare that list with your own Nation's list. Syria was never a threat to its neighbors or the U.S. So why try to kill Assad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do low life, low IQ, worthless pieces of shit like you screech about every little action the US - but then twist themselves like pretzels trying to defend even the most egregious ones by enemies of the US?
> 
> I already stated - with a link - how syria/assad harbored/funded/armed terrorists attacking US troops inside iraq for years.  The HQ of the terrorist insurgency was held in damascus.  Those actions are tantamount to declarations of war, and assad is fortunate the US did not terminate his regime for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshite. Syria merely opposed the Iraq War like some of our own allies did. And it was absolutely right to oppose it. It was a bloody horrific blunder. The U.S. had no right to invade Iraq, or declare 'Regime Change' on Assad.
> 
> In fact, some U.S./Western leaders should have been arrested and tried for War Crimes. They committed horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. If the U.S/West didn't own the International Justice System, those arrests would have happened.
Click to expand...


Obama is no longer President and he is the only one who has declared Regime Change on Assad.  Of course the invasion of Iraq was completely justified.  The UN and the US Congress so voted.  Here are just two of the reasons.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particular grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
*   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | **Source*

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
*   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | **Source*


----------



## Foxfyre

paulitician said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you sure are all in on that American Government/Corporate Media propaganda thing. The U.S. is the main cause of all the bloody carnage we're currently seeing in the Middle East. It had no valid or legal justification to declare 'Regime Change' and intervene in Syria's Civil War. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid asshole, who has been barrel-bombing whole cities for YEARS?  That was assad.
> 
> Moron, who sent in militias to slaughter women and children at Houla and Baniyas? That was assad.
> 
> Fucking retard, it would be so much better if pieces of shit like you just stopped posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's their Civil War. The U.S. had no valid or legal justification to intervene. I truly believe we need to disengage from the Middle East at this point. We are the source of most of the bloody chaos there. We don't belong in those lands. Time to come home.
Click to expand...


I do not want war in the Middle East.  But what if the U.S. had not joined the fight in WWII?  Okay we didn't do so voluntarily, but there was little chance Germany was going to attack our mainland even after declaring war on us.  But had we not gone, the Third Reich would now be in control of most of Europe and perhaps western Asia.  And all the Jews remaining in those lands would have been exterminated.

What if we had not intervened in the Middle East when Saddam took Kuwait and and was threatening to invade a mostly unarmed Saudi Arabia?  Would Saddam now be in control of most of the Middle East?

And now we are watching the horrific and cruel gassing of men, women, and children in Syria as well as all the other well documented genocide that has been going on.   Do we just sit on our hands and do nothing because it is none of our business when we have the power to intervene?

And even acknowledging that we cannot be the policeman or savior of the entire world, what is our duty as honorable human beings in the face of such suffering that we have the power to end?

No easy answers here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

candycorn said:


> [
> 
> 
> And your feelings now, Trump bot?



Trump offered a measured and rational response to Assad. It was a good move, sending a message with no casualties. Syria is none of our affair, BUT Obama armed and trained ISIS, stirring the pot.  This means that the measured response was the best option under the circumstances.


----------



## candycorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> And your feelings now, Trump bot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump offered a measured and rational response to Assad. It was a good move, sending a message with no casualties. Syria is none of our affair, BUT Obama armed and trained ISIS, stirring the pot.  This means that the measured response was the best option under the circumstances.
Click to expand...


Oh shut the fuck up.  Obama didn’t train or arm ISIS.  

A measured response?  Trump missed the runway—about 7,000 feet long or so.  And the guy who the message was intended for launched raids out of the same base the next day.  It was almost as worthless as you.  Fuck off.


----------



## Bleipriester

Uncensored2008 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> And your feelings now, Trump bot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump offered a measured and rational response to Assad. It was a good move, sending a message with no casualties. Syria is none of our affair, BUT Obama armed and trained ISIS, stirring the pot.  This means that the measured response was the best option under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

It was an illegal response justified by a self-made criminal pretext. The same what Obama tried in 2013. Phrump´s missiles are garbage and all he achieved is that Syria´s allies increase their support and that the Coalition suspended Syria flights. Missile strikes are what Obama planned by the way. Phrump is the new Ubumu.


----------



## Foxfyre

rhodescholar said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since ISIS is backed by those Iraqi Generals who were dismissed after the Iraq War, who knows how much money they had stashed away during the Saddam Hussein's regime.  Does anyone honestly think that all those coming from different parts of the world to join ISIS would have been able to conquer all that territory if they weren't led by experienced military men.  Probably if these generals had been kept on, there would never have been any group called ISIS.  As for weapons, there are arms dealers all over who will sell arms to anyone willing to pay for them.
> 
> As it was stated by ISIS when they first appeared on the scene, that Syria was the stepping stone to the new Caliphate.  They saw the chaos in Syria due to the Civil War, and saw their chance then to begin their start on their dream of a Caliphate.
> 
> There are many articles on the Internet about the leaders of ISIS being ex-Iraqi generals.  Here is one of them.
> 
> How Disbanding the Iraqi Army Fueled ISIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this but think as usual, the problem was with iran who whipped up and forced the iraqi shias to demand the army be disbanded.  They wanted it gone so they would have (like hez in lebanon) a weak national army to give them a free hand to stir up trouble and intimidate the sunnis without fearing any blowback.  They wanted to be able to kill politicians, journalists and activists in iraq who would challenge them, ethnically cleanse sunnis out of various cities/regions, and be able to operate under iran's controlling hand without the threat of a national army.  And they wanted to be able to force lots of sunnis out of government bureaucratic positions - which they did - which also led to a lot of anger and support to form ISIS, which was primarily a response to the iranian-driven sunni oppression in iraq.
> 
> Had the US told iran to fuck off, retained the national army, and crushed all of the shia militias, the sunnis would have remained empowered and not felt a need to form a group to protect them like ISIS.  But the shit lazy media, and anti-american filth, prefer to lie and tell people that ISIS was "started by the US" - which is absolute garbage.
Click to expand...


I don't think Iran had much to do with that.  Donald Rumsfeld, in the post mortems of the Iraq war, freely admitted that was one of their worst errors in judgment; i.e. allowing the Republican Guard to go home with their weapons.  It would be those very people who spearheaded and led the insurgency that created the prolonged war that should have already been over.

But so far as going to war, I hope, I hope, I hope that we have a President who, if he agrees to go to war with ANYBODY, will do so with all stops pulled out and with the understanding that victory will be the complete and unconditional surrender of all the hostile forces in that country even if the country has to be flattened to accomplish that.  And we won't pussy foot around our willingness to flatten it thus making victory short, sweet, and absolute.

And because such an extreme situation will be most unlikely to be justified, that means we won't be starting and participating in these little wars that seem to go on forever at great cost to both military and civilian lives.

The missile assault on the Syrian airfield was not a 'war'.  It was swift and certain retaliation for a war crime that killed and injured a civilian target and could have endangered American lives.   And I have no problem with it.


----------

