Iran signs $20billion deal wh Boeing . Thanks Obama!

[toomuchtime_]

As usual you wan to argue about things on which you are woefully misinformed. Russia has a border with Norway and Norway has had a policy since 1949 that opposed having foreign troops on its soil, so your attempt to pretend there is nothing special about US troops being based in Norway is either the result of ignorance or dishonesty.

You have ignored everything I said and stuck with your, "BUT BUT BUT since 1949..."

This isn't 1949. That was a decision made oh... 67 years ago? WTF does that matter? The troops are training together. It's 330 Marines. Again... answer one of my statements or move on. You've made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Vaernes, Norway is no where near the Russian border, so as I stated, it is a whole three countries away from Russia.

They are not just training there, they are going to be based there and the US is also storing weapons and ammunition in caves in Norway according to the BBC.

So why did Norway change this longstanding policy now? According to Norway's defense minister, it was at the behest of the US.
So the question remains, why did Obama push Norway to change its policy now to allow US troops to be based in Norway and to store weapons and ammunition in Norway?

You keep trying, I'll give you that, but you haven't answered a single fucking question I asked.

In other words, you enjoy partisan bickering but you have no idea what any of this is about.

No boss, I'm calling you out because you don't get it. What threat is 330 Marines to Russia? Countries cross train troops ALL the time... there are more than a hundred times 330 foreign troops training on U.S. soil right now. It is a fucking ridiculous threat from Russia to now say Norway is a nuclear target over 330 Marines... and you fucking quit ignoring that. But go ahead and keep repeating 1949 over and over in your head... and maybe that will change things right?

You seem to be too stupid to understand no troops have cross trained in Norway since 1949, so you claim it is done all the time means you are either an idiot or a liar. There is a third possibility, you are both an idiot and a liar.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Russia's interest in Syria is keeping its bases on the Mediterranean and so far the only way it can do that is to support Assad, but this conflict is expensive for the suffering Russian economy and Russia is starting to take casualties, so if Russia had a chance to secure its interests with paying so much in blood and treasure, it is reasonable to think it would take it, but Obama has offered nothing but political slogans calculated to play well in the US but without relevance to ending the conflict in Syria.

Russia has every reason to distrust the US and especially the Obama administration and that means they have to wonder why Obama sent Marines to train in Norway. The same conditions could have been found in Alaska so why Norway? Was this intended as a provocation or was it just another example of Obama cluelessness?

How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?

Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better

First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.

I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.

kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"

Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.

So try again, and this time answer the question

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

That's OBVIOUSLY not the question. The question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

This is the Middle East, there is no history of government overthrows leading to more benevolent governments. You're just pulling it out of your ass. So based on blind faith, you want to help ISIS overthrow the government.

Right now you have a Shiite government and a Sunni people. They are a house divided, and it keeps them largely out of their neighbors shit. If you think helping Sunni ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and you have a terrorist Sunni group running a Sunni country and you think they are not going to "kill as many people" you're fucking halucinating. You know nothing about the Middle East. Leave the discussion to grown ups

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

I did, you just needed it explained to you because you don't have enough knowledge to understand the question much less provide the answer

First, I did answer your question: since most of the killing has been the result of indiscriminate bombing by Assad and Russia, if that bombing stopped there would be fewer people killed. You cannot rationally dispute that fact, and that means if Assad goes, fewer people will be killed not matter what the next government looks like.

Second, you seem to be claiming the only alternative to the bloody and incompetent Assad government is ISIS, but there is no basis for such an assumption. If the US and Russia reached an accord such as I described in an earlier post to stabilize Syria after Assad left, there is no chance ISIS would gain control over the country. ISIS and al Qaeda might be able to maintain a presence in the country, but neither will be able to control the government.

You seem to have a lot of passion for this issue, but not to have thought it through very clearly.

 

[toomuchtime_]

First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.

I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.

kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"

Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.

So try again, and this time answer the question

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

...and what if, say Syria does finally get to the point where they are no longer fighting ISIS and the rebels and Assad agrees to the terms of an election, and the Russians help Assad get re-elected? And things go right back to where they are today?

There have not been honest elections in Syria ever since Assad's father overthrew the democratically elected government nearly a half century ago and established his dynasty, so holding honest elections now would be quite an amazing feat, and since this is basically a sectarian struggling between the Alawites, a Shia sect, and the Sunni and the Sunni make up the majority of the population, it would be nothing short of a miracle if Assad won.

You say that and don't grasp the significance of Sunni ISIS overthrowing the government and our helping them do that??? Seriously???

I didn't say that, and I don't understand why you feel the need to claim I did. There is simply no basis for believing ISIS is the only alternative to Assad.

 

[Lewdog]

You have ignored everything I said and stuck with your, "BUT BUT BUT since 1949..."

This isn't 1949. That was a decision made oh... 67 years ago? WTF does that matter? The troops are training together. It's 330 Marines. Again... answer one of my statements or move on. You've made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Vaernes, Norway is no where near the Russian border, so as I stated, it is a whole three countries away from Russia.

They are not just training there, they are going to be based there and the US is also storing weapons and ammunition in caves in Norway according to the BBC.

So why did Norway change this longstanding policy now? According to Norway's defense minister, it was at the behest of the US.
So the question remains, why did Obama push Norway to change its policy now to allow US troops to be based in Norway and to store weapons and ammunition in Norway?

You keep trying, I'll give you that, but you haven't answered a single fucking question I asked.

In other words, you enjoy partisan bickering but you have no idea what any of this is about.

No boss, I'm calling you out because you don't get it. What threat is 330 Marines to Russia? Countries cross train troops ALL the time... there are more than a hundred times 330 foreign troops training on U.S. soil right now. It is a fucking ridiculous threat from Russia to now say Norway is a nuclear target over 330 Marines... and you fucking quit ignoring that. But go ahead and keep repeating 1949 over and over in your head... and maybe that will change things right?

You seem to be too stupid to understand no troops have cross trained in Norway since 1949, so you claim it is done all the time means you are either an idiot or a liar. There is a third possibility, you are both an idiot and a liar.

No dipshit, I said other countries cross train with each other ALL the time. What don't you understand? The fact Norway hadn't done it since 1949 is irrelevant. I didn't say ,"These countries," I said "countries." You really need to learn some fucking reading comprehension. So now the fact that Norway and the United States are doing it just means that what Norway was doing was pointless. Fuck man, you are a fucking dolt. And again... what the fuck do you think 330 Marines is going to do against Russia? Get a fucking clue.

 

[toomuchtime_]

They are not just training there, they are going to be based there and the US is also storing weapons and ammunition in caves in Norway according to the BBC.

So why did Norway change this longstanding policy now? According to Norway's defense minister, it was at the behest of the US.
So the question remains, why did Obama push Norway to change its policy now to allow US troops to be based in Norway and to store weapons and ammunition in Norway?

You keep trying, I'll give you that, but you haven't answered a single fucking question I asked.

In other words, you enjoy partisan bickering but you have no idea what any of this is about.

No boss, I'm calling you out because you don't get it. What threat is 330 Marines to Russia? Countries cross train troops ALL the time... there are more than a hundred times 330 foreign troops training on U.S. soil right now. It is a fucking ridiculous threat from Russia to now say Norway is a nuclear target over 330 Marines... and you fucking quit ignoring that. But go ahead and keep repeating 1949 over and over in your head... and maybe that will change things right?

You seem to be too stupid to understand no troops have cross trained in Norway since 1949, so you claim it is done all the time means you are either an idiot or a liar. There is a third possibility, you are both an idiot and a liar.

No dipshit, I said other countries cross train with each other ALL the time. What don't you understand? The fact Norway hadn't done it since 1949 is irrelevant. I didn't say ,"These countries," I said "countries." You really need to learn some fucking reading comprehension. So now the fact that Norway and the United States are doing it just means that what Norway was doing was pointless. Fuck man, you are a fucking dolt. And again... what the fuck do you think 330 Marines is going to do against Russia? Get a fucking clue.

lol You are just too stupid and ignorant to be allowed to cross the street by yourself.

 

[Contumacious]

i wonder what people think of this ? Thanks to the Iran deal sanctions are lifted and we can sell them shit like jumbo jets. Good for the us and good for biz . Usually the righties are happy with that .

But , considering Trumps lies and misinformation in the Iran deal, it appears the whole thing may be ruined .

What say you ?

Boeing's $16B aircraft deal with Iran Air faces challenges

Now Timmy, there we concur.

The 16B aircraft deal is good for American workers and our economy.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is a threat to the US.

I hope my president will understand this and reject the warmonger effort to attack Iran.


.

 

[Lewdog]

You keep trying, I'll give you that, but you haven't answered a single fucking question I asked.

In other words, you enjoy partisan bickering but you have no idea what any of this is about.

No boss, I'm calling you out because you don't get it. What threat is 330 Marines to Russia? Countries cross train troops ALL the time... there are more than a hundred times 330 foreign troops training on U.S. soil right now. It is a fucking ridiculous threat from Russia to now say Norway is a nuclear target over 330 Marines... and you fucking quit ignoring that. But go ahead and keep repeating 1949 over and over in your head... and maybe that will change things right?

You seem to be too stupid to understand no troops have cross trained in Norway since 1949, so you claim it is done all the time means you are either an idiot or a liar. There is a third possibility, you are both an idiot and a liar.

No dipshit, I said other countries cross train with each other ALL the time. What don't you understand? The fact Norway hadn't done it since 1949 is irrelevant. I didn't say ,"These countries," I said "countries." You really need to learn some fucking reading comprehension. So now the fact that Norway and the United States are doing it just means that what Norway was doing was pointless. Fuck man, you are a fucking dolt. And again... what the fuck do you think 330 Marines is going to do against Russia? Get a fucking clue.

lol You are just too stupid and ignorant to be allowed to cross the street by yourself.

Really coming from you? You really don't fucking understand the significance of cross training. That's a huge part of the problem. Do you have ANY tactical experience at ALL? Military or civilian? I'm guessing not, because you can't grasp a single fucking aspect of this.

 

[kaz]

How is helping ISIS accomplish one of the two stated goals in it's name a good thing again?

Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer. Say how you believe the ensuing government will be better

First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.

I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.

kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"

Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.

So try again, and this time answer the question

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

That's OBVIOUSLY not the question. The question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

This is the Middle East, there is no history of government overthrows leading to more benevolent governments. You're just pulling it out of your ass. So based on blind faith, you want to help ISIS overthrow the government.

Right now you have a Shiite government and a Sunni people. They are a house divided, and it keeps them largely out of their neighbors shit. If you think helping Sunni ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and you have a terrorist Sunni group running a Sunni country and you think they are not going to "kill as many people" you're fucking halucinating. You know nothing about the Middle East. Leave the discussion to grown ups

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

I did, you just needed it explained to you because you don't have enough knowledge to understand the question much less provide the answer

First, I did answer your question: since most of the killing has been the result of indiscriminate bombing by Assad and Russia, if that bombing stopped there would be fewer people killed. You cannot rationally dispute that fact, and that means if Assad goes, fewer people will be killed not matter what the next government looks like.

Second, you seem to be claiming the only alternative to the bloody and incompetent Assad government is ISIS, but there is no basis for such an assumption. If the US and Russia reached an accord such as I described in an earlier post to stabilize Syria after Assad left, there is no chance ISIS would gain control over the country. ISIS and al Qaeda might be able to maintain a presence in the country, but neither will be able to control the government.

You seem to have a lot of passion for this issue, but not to have thought it through very clearly.

Not only can I rationally dispute that fact but the only reason you can possibly believe it is that you know NOTHING about the Middle East.

You see kaz, if we help ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and the Sunnis take over, they're going to want to live in peace with the Shiites who they think are dogs worse than the Jews and killing will go down.

You're living in a dream world

 

[kaz]

I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.

kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"

Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.

So try again, and this time answer the question

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

...and what if, say Syria does finally get to the point where they are no longer fighting ISIS and the rebels and Assad agrees to the terms of an election, and the Russians help Assad get re-elected? And things go right back to where they are today?

There have not been honest elections in Syria ever since Assad's father overthrew the democratically elected government nearly a half century ago and established his dynasty, so holding honest elections now would be quite an amazing feat, and since this is basically a sectarian struggling between the Alawites, a Shia sect, and the Sunni and the Sunni make up the majority of the population, it would be nothing short of a miracle if Assad won.

You say that and don't grasp the significance of Sunni ISIS overthrowing the government and our helping them do that??? Seriously???

I didn't say that, and I don't understand why you feel the need to claim I did. There is simply no basis for believing ISIS is the only alternative to Assad.

Not unless you understand the Middle East, no there isn't. Sure, Alfalfa, the Sunnis are going to take over Syria and fight Sunni ISIS. The Syrian Sunnis just want peace like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

You live in a dream world

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you enjoy partisan bickering but you have no idea what any of this is about.

No boss, I'm calling you out because you don't get it. What threat is 330 Marines to Russia? Countries cross train troops ALL the time... there are more than a hundred times 330 foreign troops training on U.S. soil right now. It is a fucking ridiculous threat from Russia to now say Norway is a nuclear target over 330 Marines... and you fucking quit ignoring that. But go ahead and keep repeating 1949 over and over in your head... and maybe that will change things right?

You seem to be too stupid to understand no troops have cross trained in Norway since 1949, so you claim it is done all the time means you are either an idiot or a liar. There is a third possibility, you are both an idiot and a liar.

No dipshit, I said other countries cross train with each other ALL the time. What don't you understand? The fact Norway hadn't done it since 1949 is irrelevant. I didn't say ,"These countries," I said "countries." You really need to learn some fucking reading comprehension. So now the fact that Norway and the United States are doing it just means that what Norway was doing was pointless. Fuck man, you are a fucking dolt. And again... what the fuck do you think 330 Marines is going to do against Russia? Get a fucking clue.

lol You are just too stupid and ignorant to be allowed to cross the street by yourself.

Really coming from you? You really don't fucking understand the significance of cross training. That's a huge part of the problem. Do you have ANY tactical experience at ALL? Military or civilian? I'm guessing not, because you can't grasp a single fucking aspect of this.

Lewdog, you have already proved you are an idiot and a liar so there is no need for you to go on trying to prove it again.

 

[toomuchtime_]

First, most of the death and destruction is the result of indiscreminate bombing by Assad and Russia of all of Assad's enemies, so a US-Russia deal that would end indicreminate bombing would save lives and infrastructure. ISIS is steadily losing territory, so I don't believe it will be a major obstacle to establishing a new government. So right off the top we have a great improvement over the present situation.

I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.

kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"

Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.

So try again, and this time answer the question

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

That's OBVIOUSLY not the question. The question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

This is the Middle East, there is no history of government overthrows leading to more benevolent governments. You're just pulling it out of your ass. So based on blind faith, you want to help ISIS overthrow the government.

Right now you have a Shiite government and a Sunni people. They are a house divided, and it keeps them largely out of their neighbors shit. If you think helping Sunni ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and you have a terrorist Sunni group running a Sunni country and you think they are not going to "kill as many people" you're fucking halucinating. You know nothing about the Middle East. Leave the discussion to grown ups

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

I did, you just needed it explained to you because you don't have enough knowledge to understand the question much less provide the answer

First, I did answer your question: since most of the killing has been the result of indiscriminate bombing by Assad and Russia, if that bombing stopped there would be fewer people killed. You cannot rationally dispute that fact, and that means if Assad goes, fewer people will be killed not matter what the next government looks like.

Second, you seem to be claiming the only alternative to the bloody and incompetent Assad government is ISIS, but there is no basis for such an assumption. If the US and Russia reached an accord such as I described in an earlier post to stabilize Syria after Assad left, there is no chance ISIS would gain control over the country. ISIS and al Qaeda might be able to maintain a presence in the country, but neither will be able to control the government.

You seem to have a lot of passion for this issue, but not to have thought it through very clearly.

Not only can I rationally dispute that fact but the only reason you can possibly believe it is that you know NOTHING about the Middle East.

You see kaz, if we help ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and the Sunnis take over, they're going to want to live in peace with the Shiites who they think are dogs worse than the Jews and killing will go down.

You're living in a dream world

You either didn't read or couldn't understand my post or you wouldn't have posted such irrelevant drivel.

 

[Lewdog]

No boss, I'm calling you out because you don't get it. What threat is 330 Marines to Russia? Countries cross train troops ALL the time... there are more than a hundred times 330 foreign troops training on U.S. soil right now. It is a fucking ridiculous threat from Russia to now say Norway is a nuclear target over 330 Marines... and you fucking quit ignoring that. But go ahead and keep repeating 1949 over and over in your head... and maybe that will change things right?

You seem to be too stupid to understand no troops have cross trained in Norway since 1949, so you claim it is done all the time means you are either an idiot or a liar. There is a third possibility, you are both an idiot and a liar.

No dipshit, I said other countries cross train with each other ALL the time. What don't you understand? The fact Norway hadn't done it since 1949 is irrelevant. I didn't say ,"These countries," I said "countries." You really need to learn some fucking reading comprehension. So now the fact that Norway and the United States are doing it just means that what Norway was doing was pointless. Fuck man, you are a fucking dolt. And again... what the fuck do you think 330 Marines is going to do against Russia? Get a fucking clue.

lol You are just too stupid and ignorant to be allowed to cross the street by yourself.

Really coming from you? You really don't fucking understand the significance of cross training. That's a huge part of the problem. Do you have ANY tactical experience at ALL? Military or civilian? I'm guessing not, because you can't grasp a single fucking aspect of this.

Lewdog, you have already proved you are an idiot and a liar so there is no need for you to go on trying to prove it again.

Right bro... you can't fucking answer a single question because you know I'll expose you for what you are, a douche. You call me an idiot and a liar... only because you can't fucking comprehend what is being said.

I'll ask you one last time, and if you have any dignity whatsoever you'll answer. Do you have any tactical training, military or civilian? What do you possibly think 330 Marines is going to do against Russia?

Now, prove something... other than that you are a douche.

 

[Lewdog]

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

...and what if, say Syria does finally get to the point where they are no longer fighting ISIS and the rebels and Assad agrees to the terms of an election, and the Russians help Assad get re-elected? And things go right back to where they are today?

There have not been honest elections in Syria ever since Assad's father overthrew the democratically elected government nearly a half century ago and established his dynasty, so holding honest elections now would be quite an amazing feat, and since this is basically a sectarian struggling between the Alawites, a Shia sect, and the Sunni and the Sunni make up the majority of the population, it would be nothing short of a miracle if Assad won.

You say that and don't grasp the significance of Sunni ISIS overthrowing the government and our helping them do that??? Seriously???

I didn't say that, and I don't understand why you feel the need to claim I did. There is simply no basis for believing ISIS is the only alternative to Assad.

Not unless you understand the Middle East, no there isn't. Sure, Alfalfa, the Sunnis are going to take over Syria and fight Sunni ISIS. The Syrian Sunnis just want peace like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

You live in a dream world

You and I are wasting our time with this fuckwad. He thinks he is General Patton, when he's closer to a Patton Oswald when it comes to military stuff. You know I take that back, Patton Oswald probably knows more than he does.

 

[Dschrute3]

Is this really something we should be thanking anyone for? I mean i am happy for Boeing and its workers. But some would say we've sold our souls to the devil. It does seem like we'll deal with any evil, as long as there's a buck to be made. Something to ponder anyway.

 

[kaz]

I gave you a three sentence question and you couldn't read it.

kaz: "Don't say how much Syria sucks, that isn't an answer"

Just saying the governments sucks so "right off the top we have a great improvement" is bull shit in the Middle East. There is no reason the ensuing government would be better just because the current one sucks.

So try again, and this time answer the question

Actually it is an answer to your question. You asked how the next government would be better than the present one, and I answered they wouldn't kill as many people.

That's OBVIOUSLY not the question. The question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

This is the Middle East, there is no history of government overthrows leading to more benevolent governments. You're just pulling it out of your ass. So based on blind faith, you want to help ISIS overthrow the government.

Right now you have a Shiite government and a Sunni people. They are a house divided, and it keeps them largely out of their neighbors shit. If you think helping Sunni ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and you have a terrorist Sunni group running a Sunni country and you think they are not going to "kill as many people" you're fucking halucinating. You know nothing about the Middle East. Leave the discussion to grown ups

If you were looking for a debate over whether it would be a democracy or another dictatorship or if it would end the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia, why not ask the question directly?

I did, you just needed it explained to you because you don't have enough knowledge to understand the question much less provide the answer

First, I did answer your question: since most of the killing has been the result of indiscriminate bombing by Assad and Russia, if that bombing stopped there would be fewer people killed. You cannot rationally dispute that fact, and that means if Assad goes, fewer people will be killed not matter what the next government looks like.

Second, you seem to be claiming the only alternative to the bloody and incompetent Assad government is ISIS, but there is no basis for such an assumption. If the US and Russia reached an accord such as I described in an earlier post to stabilize Syria after Assad left, there is no chance ISIS would gain control over the country. ISIS and al Qaeda might be able to maintain a presence in the country, but neither will be able to control the government.

You seem to have a lot of passion for this issue, but not to have thought it through very clearly.

Not only can I rationally dispute that fact but the only reason you can possibly believe it is that you know NOTHING about the Middle East.

You see kaz, if we help ISIS overthrow the Shiite government and the Sunnis take over, they're going to want to live in peace with the Shiites who they think are dogs worse than the Jews and killing will go down.

You're living in a dream world

You either didn't read or couldn't understand my post or you wouldn't have posted such irrelevant drivel.

You need to learn about the Shiites and Sunnis because you're not going to understand the ME until you understand that relationship

 

[Divine Wind]

Is this really something we should be thanking anyone for? I mean i am happy for Boeing and its workers. But some would say we've sold our souls to the devil. It does seem like we'll deal with any evil, as long as there's a buck to be made. Something to ponder anyway.

Modern aircraft are flying computers. Ever consider the advantages of a backdoor as recommended by our intelligence agencies?

As U.S. spy chief, Fiorina would support backdoors
The one-time bitter political foes met Monday at Trump Tower in New York for what Fiorina called a "productive" discussion about China as "probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary."

"We talked about hacking, whether it’s Chinese hacking or purported Russian hacking," Fiorina told reporters.

During the Republican primary season, Fiorina urged Apple, Google and others to "tear down cyberwalls" to help track down criminals online, a stance that ran in cross currents to Silicon Valley, which publicly supported Apple in its fight with the FBI over hacking into a terrorist's iPhone, and has been building stronger device encryption in the months since.

“We could have detected and repelled some of those cyberattacks” if we had passed “a law (that) has been sitting, languishing, sadly, on Capitol Hill,” she said at the first GOP debate last year.

 

[Lewdog]

Is this really something we should be thanking anyone for? I mean i am happy for Boeing and its workers. But some would say we've sold our souls to the devil. It does seem like we'll deal with any evil, as long as there's a buck to be made. Something to ponder anyway.

Modern aircraft are flying computers. Ever consider the advantages of a backdoor as recommended by our intelligence agencies?

As U.S. spy chief, Fiorina would support backdoors
The one-time bitter political foes met Monday at Trump Tower in New York for what Fiorina called a "productive" discussion about China as "probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary."

"We talked about hacking, whether it’s Chinese hacking or purported Russian hacking," Fiorina told reporters.

During the Republican primary season, Fiorina urged Apple, Google and others to "tear down cyberwalls" to help track down criminals online, a stance that ran in cross currents to Silicon Valley, which publicly supported Apple in its fight with the FBI over hacking into a terrorist's iPhone, and has been building stronger device encryption in the months since.

“We could have detected and repelled some of those cyberattacks” if we had passed “a law (that) has been sitting, languishing, sadly, on Capitol Hill,” she said at the first GOP debate last year.

Another case of which is more important, your freedoms or your safety. It's difficult really. Both parties really want to keep as many personal freedoms as possible, but at the same time, government wants to be able to protect people in order to not get blamed for the deaths of its citizens. So what do you do? I can't even say for myself which way I lean on this, but one has to ask, what good are your freedoms if you are dead?

 

[initforme]

Boei ng knows what tnbey are doing. Don't pay your employees and do business with a deceitful partner. Boeing is 100 percent guilty.

 

[Divine Wind]

Is this really something we should be thanking anyone for? I mean i am happy for Boeing and its workers. But some would say we've sold our souls to the devil. It does seem like we'll deal with any evil, as long as there's a buck to be made. Something to ponder anyway.

Modern aircraft are flying computers. Ever consider the advantages of a backdoor as recommended by our intelligence agencies?

As U.S. spy chief, Fiorina would support backdoors
The one-time bitter political foes met Monday at Trump Tower in New York for what Fiorina called a "productive" discussion about China as "probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary."

"We talked about hacking, whether it’s Chinese hacking or purported Russian hacking," Fiorina told reporters.

During the Republican primary season, Fiorina urged Apple, Google and others to "tear down cyberwalls" to help track down criminals online, a stance that ran in cross currents to Silicon Valley, which publicly supported Apple in its fight with the FBI over hacking into a terrorist's iPhone, and has been building stronger device encryption in the months since.

“We could have detected and repelled some of those cyberattacks” if we had passed “a law (that) has been sitting, languishing, sadly, on Capitol Hill,” she said at the first GOP debate last year.

Another case of which is more important, your freedoms or your safety. It's difficult really. Both parties really want to keep as many personal freedoms as possible, but at the same time, government wants to be able to protect people in order to not get blamed for the deaths of its citizens. So what do you do? I can't even say for myself which way I lean on this, but one has to ask, what good are your freedoms if you are dead?

It's a difficult, complex question when discussing domestic issues, but when it involves foreign sales to hostile nations, I have an easier time deciding.

 

[Lewdog]

Is this really something we should be thanking anyone for? I mean i am happy for Boeing and its workers. But some would say we've sold our souls to the devil. It does seem like we'll deal with any evil, as long as there's a buck to be made. Something to ponder anyway.

Modern aircraft are flying computers. Ever consider the advantages of a backdoor as recommended by our intelligence agencies?

As U.S. spy chief, Fiorina would support backdoors
The one-time bitter political foes met Monday at Trump Tower in New York for what Fiorina called a "productive" discussion about China as "probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary."

"We talked about hacking, whether it’s Chinese hacking or purported Russian hacking," Fiorina told reporters.

During the Republican primary season, Fiorina urged Apple, Google and others to "tear down cyberwalls" to help track down criminals online, a stance that ran in cross currents to Silicon Valley, which publicly supported Apple in its fight with the FBI over hacking into a terrorist's iPhone, and has been building stronger device encryption in the months since.

“We could have detected and repelled some of those cyberattacks” if we had passed “a law (that) has been sitting, languishing, sadly, on Capitol Hill,” she said at the first GOP debate last year.

Another case of which is more important, your freedoms or your safety. It's difficult really. Both parties really want to keep as many personal freedoms as possible, but at the same time, government wants to be able to protect people in order to not get blamed for the deaths of its citizens. So what do you do? I can't even say for myself which way I lean on this, but one has to ask, what good are your freedoms if you are dead?

It's a difficult, complex question when discussing domestic issues, but when it involves foreign sales, I have an easier time deciding.

The problem is when you have terrorists working for foreign agencies that use our own domestic devices... So basically if companies give the government the ability to break the encryption, we have to then trust our government to only use it when it comes to terrorists and not just against its own civilians. We already know we can't always trust our government, given what has come out from Snowden and how the NSA tracks everyone even when you haven't done anything wrong to be tracked. So maybe its a good thing that companies aren't providing the government with that information?

I think another sad thing to realize is, some 14 year old kid in his parent's basement can hack things that people within the government can't.