Russia's Putin calls John Kerry a liar on Syria

[Avorysuds]

Yup, and you threw your vote away, didn't you? Yeah, useful tool.

What a far ____ reactionary comment. BTW, if I threw my vote away because who I voted for didn't win... wouldn't that mean when you lost with your boy Mitt that you threw your vote away? Or let me guess, like with so many far left reactionary progressives on these boards, it's different when it's you that's on the spot.

 

[TooTall]

For those of us who served through parts of the Cold War, MikeK, we could care less about your opinion.

Clear on that? You don't have the moral ground.

And you think an admitted war criminal (his words) has any moral high ground. I put John Kerry in the same boat as Hanoi Jane Fonda.

On NBC's Meet The Press in 1971, Kerry was asked whether he had personally committed atrocities in Vietnam. He responded:

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Kerry's word is better than most Americans. By the way, we both know Lt Calley got the short end of the straw, for sure.

According the traitor John Kerry, Lt Calley and every US soldier that fired a weapon in Vietnam was a war criminal.

When Kerry was testifying to Congress it was to establish a base of supporters for his run for a seat in the House. And there were and still are a lot of them in Mass.

 

[Moonglow]

I would say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a good judge of character.

ever see his scorecard on murders?

 

[Moonglow]

And you think an admitted war criminal (his words) has any moral high ground. I put John Kerry in the same boat as Hanoi Jane Fonda.

On NBC's Meet The Press in 1971, Kerry was asked whether he had personally committed atrocities in Vietnam. He responded:

Kerry's word is better than most Americans. By the way, we both know Lt Calley got the short end of the straw, for sure.

According the traitor John Kerry, Lt Calley and every US soldier that fired a weapon in Vietnam was a war criminal.

When Kerry was testifying to Congress it was to establish a base of supporters for his run for a seat in the House. And there were and still are a lot of them in Mass.

Lt. Calley was a murderer.

 

[TooTall]

Bombing is an act of war, not an invasion, though.

The political ploy being used is "no boots on the ground," and that is total BS. All that means is a no invasion by Army troops or Marines. Just as there were special ops and CIA in Libya, they will be in Syria attempting to secure the poison gas sites.

Why else would "a shot across the bow" require 60 days with a 30 day extension.

 

[TooTall]

Kerry's word is better than most Americans. By the way, we both know Lt Calley got the short end of the straw, for sure.

According the traitor John Kerry, Lt Calley and every US soldier that fired a weapon in Vietnam was a war criminal.

When Kerry was testifying to Congress it was to establish a base of supporters for his run for a seat in the House. And there were and still are a lot of them in Mass.

Lt. Calley was a murderer.

No argument, and according to John Kerry, so is he and every other combatant that fought in Vietnam. And, the scumbag said this while we were still at war with them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just read that putin is sending a missile shield to syria.

Did you notice the date on the story? Was it June 16 or May 31?

Ah, the Fedayeen is here.

 

[Smilebong]

Yeah, it ain't happening, that's why there is no link.

 

[Uncensored2008]

History will lay responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria at the feet of those who support Assad, and not at the feet of those who failed to support his opposition.

Attacking now is pointless, let the Russians clean up their own mess.

History is written by the victors. If Russia truly supports Assad, Obama will retreat with his tail between his legs, pissing himself all the way - and history will be written by the Russians.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Has Russia not been sending a crap-load of weapons to Syria since this started?

I'm not saying that if the Russians responded to the chemical attack by stopping THEIR flow of weapons that Assad would fall immediately, but it would hurt him.

Of course they are. Syria is under Ba'ath rule - they are, you know, Stalinist....

 

[Flopper]

Bombing is an act of war, not an invasion, though.

The political ploy being used is "no boots on the ground," and that is total BS. All that means is a no invasion by Army troops or Marines. Just as there were special ops and CIA in Libya, they will be in Syria attempting to secure the poison gas sites.

Why else would "a shot across the bow" require 60 days with a 30 day extension.

Technically, you may be correct but I think most people interpret no boots on the ground to mean no major commitment of ground forces such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. We probably have CIA on the ground right now in Syria.

 

[rhodescholar]

You really think so? Breaking international law by bombing Syria, allowing AQ to take over, and then there is the report that you will need 75,000 boots on the ground to secure the chemical weapons in Syria, American men and women dying for a President who is going to send them to war to satiate his ego.....

First off, the US is not breaking int'l law by bombing syria, so let's get past that.

Second, how is it "better" with the chem weapons in assad's hands? He's already used them multiple times on his own people, and has a history of passing along deadly weaponry to terrorist groups. Who's to say that if he prevails won't in anger and retribution against any of the countries in the mideast or europe or the US and give them to terrorists to use against them?

Third, show me the links to where you get your avatar pics, I want to meet those girls...

 

[dilloduck]

You really think so? Breaking international law by bombing Syria, allowing AQ to take over, and then there is the report that you will need 75,000 boots on the ground to secure the chemical weapons in Syria, American men and women dying for a President who is going to send them to war to satiate his ego.....

First off, the US is not breaking int'l law by bombing syria, so let's get past that.

Second, how is it "better" with the chem weapons in assad's hands? He's already used them multiple times on his own people, and has a history of passing along deadly weaponry to terrorist groups. Who's to say that if he prevails won't in anger and retribution against any of the countries in the mideast or europe or the US and give them to terrorists to use against them?

Third, show me the links to where you get your avatar pics, I want to meet those girls...

and who's to say that Russia ( the ally that provided them with the WMDs in the first place) won't hit back and hit hard. Is it REALLY worth risking that ?

 

[tinydancer]

You really think so? Breaking international law by bombing Syria, allowing AQ to take over, and then there is the report that you will need 75,000 boots on the ground to secure the chemical weapons in Syria, American men and women dying for a President who is going to send them to war to satiate his ego.....

First off, the US is not breaking int'l law by bombing syria, so let's get past that.

Second, how is it "better" with the chem weapons in assad's hands? He's already used them multiple times on his own people, and has a history of passing along deadly weaponry to terrorist groups. Who's to say that if he prevails won't in anger and retribution against any of the countries in the mideast or europe or the US and give them to terrorists to use against them?

Third, show me the links to where you get your avatar pics, I want to meet those girls...

First re: International law. You should see all the articles claiming that the US will be breaking the law with no approval from the UN.

Here's a US link. There are many others out there.

U.S. strike on Syria would break international law
George Bisharat
Published 2:56 pm, Monday, September 2, 2013

AND FROM THE ARTICLE (btw short and sweet and worth the read)

Yet congressional approval alone is insufficient to establish the legality of a U.S. attack.

The Charter of the United Nations permits the use of force in but two circumstances: self-defense in the face of imminent attack; and when authorized by the Security Council to counter a threat to international peace.

President Obama's admission that an attack will be "effective tomorrow, or next week, or a month from now" clarifies that we face no imminent attack.

Nor is Security Council approval forthcoming.

U.S. strike on Syria would break international law - SFGate

Secondly regarding the chemical weapons . Assad to date has not been proven to have used them.

The UN Inspectors have not issued their report. Other instances of sarin use were believed to have been used by the rebels according to the UN Inspectors. Turkey caught rebels trying to enter Syria with sarin. And a foot note. If Assad is overthrown Panetta already testified that to secure the facilities in Syria will require boots on the ground.

Minimum 75,000 boots on the ground just to keep the weapons out of the hands of nasty terrorists aka rebels.

Third too funny. Just google.

 

[JWBooth]

What do you expect the former head of the KGB to say?

Something harsher.

Like....

"that stupid mother fucker Kerry is lying his ass off. Guess not much has changed since his days giving testimony on the Vietnam War."

or

"what a dumb fuck that wouldn't realize that you can pick up any paper any time and know that al nusra is there. what a lying son of a bitch".

How am I doing?

Pretty much covers it.

 

[tinydancer]

I would say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a good judge of character.

ever see his scorecard on murders?

It would be interesting to view the statistics of Putin (KGB days) vs Obama (Presidential drone assassinations).

 

[Flopper]

You really think so? Breaking international law by bombing Syria, allowing AQ to take over, and then there is the report that you will need 75,000 boots on the ground to secure the chemical weapons in Syria, American men and women dying for a President who is going to send them to war to satiate his ego.....

First off, the US is not breaking int'l law by bombing syria, so let's get past that.

Second, how is it "better" with the chem weapons in assad's hands? He's already used them multiple times on his own people, and has a history of passing along deadly weaponry to terrorist groups. Who's to say that if he prevails won't in anger and retribution against any of the countries in the mideast or europe or the US and give them to terrorists to use against them?

Third, show me the links to where you get your avatar pics, I want to meet those girls...

and who's to say that Russia ( the ally that provided them with the WMDs in the first place) won't hit back and hit hard. Is it REALLY worth risking that ?

There is always the risk in any military engagement. It's the job of military planners and analysts to determine what those risks are. Determining whether the risks are worth the gains is the job the president and congress. IMHO, those risks are pretty small. Russia is not going to start a war over Syria. However, the real risks are a mistake on our part or theirs, a missile ends up in the middle of their naval base or someone misunderstands an order.

 

[peach174]

Did you notice the date on the story? Was it June 16 or May 31?

Sept 4, 2013.

I haven't been able to find it. Can you give a clue if not a link? Any idea what kind of system they were talking about. Putin just said they would not send the s300 system, their best. Everything else is kind of not much of an issue.

Dated June 4th
Putin denies S-300 missile system has already been sent to Syria - Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz

 

[JWBooth]

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a liar

Interesting, Putin caught on to Kerry faster than the his Senate colleagues did.

 

[Katzndogz]

I would say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a good judge of character.

ever see his scorecard on murders?

It would be interesting to view the statistics of Putin (KGB days) vs Obama (Presidential drone assassinations).

obama's assassinations of journalists aren't something to sneeze at either. Brietbart, Michael Hastings, Aaron Swartz, Breitbart's coroner Michael Cormier.