Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm very annoyed over this entire situation and us being there or being involved at all. WILL we ever learn?
We have learned. We have learned extremely well that your policies and those of your messiah, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama are total, dismal failures. Those policies have left the world, especially the Middle East in total chaos.
Are you aware that as things stand today, North Korea is expected to have a nuclear ballistic missile capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States by the end of President Trump's first term. Are you prepared for that eventuality?
Let somebody ELSE "help" them for a change.
Oh sure, if I disagree then I MUST be for the "other guy." Typical fucking loons.Fuck, I'm so tired of this place.
What are you talking about? Obama was involved over there too! There is really not much "change" going on regardless of who is in charge, it seems! Why are we involved there at ALL? For what reason? Why don't we go help out those in Africa? Why do we IGNORE them but rush to the aid of these middle easterners?
To keep us neck deep in wars that many corporations that donate good money to Neocon Chickenhawks to keep getting us into.
Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama bombed seven countries. After declaring victory and a win in Iraq, ISIS stepped in to fill the vacuum. Syria crossed his red line and used chemical weapons. We have moved troops back in Iraq. After the Bush War on Terror began, we had no further fatal terrorist attacks on our soil. As you know, with President Obama, that changed drastically.
So explain to us all, if you will, how President Obama's timorous policies have improved anything in the world? During the reign of President Obama did fatal Islamic Terrorist Attacks around the world?
After the recent use of Sarin Gas by Assad on his own people, President Trump launched 50 Tomahawk at the Syrian Base from where the attack was launched. Which do you think will be more effective?
I won't say that I DON'T CARE.
But I don't see it as our problem to solve.
I await your complete 180
Let somebody ELSE "help" them for a change.
Yes, we see how well that worked when petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama, against all advice, pulled all our troops out of Iraq leaving a vacuum. That vacuum, as you know, was rapidly filled by ISIS. Their rapid expansion, the JV team as President Obama called them, has spread terror and chaos throughout the region, Western Europe, and the United States. Obama laid down a red line and you know the rest. We now have Russia occupying Crimea and building air bases in Syria where Assad ignored the red line of Obama with no consequences.
How has that let somebody ELSE "help" them policy worked?
After the Tuesday Sarin Gas attack in Syria by Assad, we have destroyed the air base in Syria from which the chemical attacks originated. We used 50 Tomahawk missiles.
The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.
The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.
In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.
If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.
I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.
So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.
Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.
Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?
I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.
So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.
WE only get a small portion of our oil from the ME. Most of our oil comes from South America and Canada as well as right here at home.
Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised
Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada and Latin America.
And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf. African imports were a bit higher in 2010, while Persian Gulf oil accounted for a bit more last year.
Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil
Source: Energy Information Administration
Credit: Nelson Hsu / NPR
America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.
The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.
In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.
If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.
I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.
So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.
Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.
Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?
I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.
So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.
Sarrin Gas is a weapon of mass destruction. The United States along with over 150 nations around the world signed the convention on chemical weapons treaty to ban its use anywhere in the world. It is band because as a weapon it is very indiscriminate in who it harms, far more than any conventional munition or weapon. Then there is what the victims experience as they die. It is a horrible death much worse than conventional weapons. Civilians are also disproportionately more likely to be effected because the military forces are often equipped with means to defend against such weapons such as pro-masks, suits, as well as air filtration systems for armored vehicles like tanks etc. So it is a weapon where innocent civilians are far more likely to suffer majority of the casualties and the effects on the body. For civilians, it is a more dangerous weapon producing a much higher casualty rate for civilians than if conventional bombs had been used in the attack.
If there is no penalty for violating the Chemical Weapons treaty which Syria and over 150 countries signed, then there is no deterrent to its further use by Syria as well as other countries around the world. This puts the lives of civilians, including American civilians in greater jeopardy of experiencing such an attack and suffering its effects. It also makes it more likely that other WMD such as Biological Weapons and Nuclear Weapons will be produced and used.
If you want to live in a world where casual use of WMD is banned and non-existent, then you should support military operations against the Assad regime to prevent and deter any further use of Chemical Weapons. The military operation is not just to punish Assad, but to prevent and deter any other nation from every using or considering the use of Chemical weapons in the future including their use against United States citizens. It is enforcement of the treaty on the ban of chemical weapons which makes the world safer for everyone including United States citizens. That treaty is weakened and the proliferation and use of chemical weapons against anyone in the world grows more likely if the treaty is not strongly enforced including using military force to punish violators and bring about compliance.
WE only get a small portion of our oil from the ME. Most of our oil comes from South America and Canada as well as right here at home.
Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised
Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada and Latin America.
And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf. African imports were a bit higher in 2010, while Persian Gulf oil accounted for a bit more last year.
Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil
Source: Energy Information Administration
Credit: Nelson Hsu / NPR
America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
But its largely irrelevant to the U.S. economy where specifically the United States receives its oil. What is relevant is the GLOBAL MARKET PRICE you pay for oil and no matter where you get it from, the price you pay for it is impacted by the global market price. So a disruption of the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf impact the price everyone pays for oil whether its being purchased or sold in Brazil, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the United States etc. The Global market determines the price all over the world, and a disruption in a major producing area like the Persian Gulf would impact everyone, drastically increasing prices depending on the level of disruption and some cases sending the global economy into recession or even worldwide Global Depression if the disruption is serious enough.
American company's that refine oil into products like gas, plastic, and other consumer products don't care where the oil comes from, they only care about the price they pay for it. Like any business, they want to pay the cheapest price because that will help their business to profit in the long run.
WE only get a small portion of our oil from the ME. Most of our oil comes from South America and Canada as well as right here at home.
Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised
Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada and Latin America.
And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf. African imports were a bit higher in 2010, while Persian Gulf oil accounted for a bit more last year.
Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil
Source: Energy Information Administration
Credit: Nelson Hsu / NPR
America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
But its largely irrelevant to the U.S. economy where specifically the United States receives its oil. What is relevant is the GLOBAL MARKET PRICE you pay for oil and no matter where you get it from, the price you pay for it is impacted by the global market price. So a disruption of the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf impact the price everyone pays for oil whether its being purchased or sold in Brazil, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the United States etc. The Global market determines the price all over the world, and a disruption in a major producing area like the Persian Gulf would impact everyone, drastically increasing prices depending on the level of disruption and some cases sending the global economy into recession or even worldwide Global Depression if the disruption is serious enough.
American company's that refine oil into products like gas, plastic, and other consumer products don't care where the oil comes from, they only care about the price they pay for it. Like any business, they want to pay the cheapest price because that will help their business to profit in the long run.
Yes, perhaps, but they need to use another tactic. All the dems are against bringing "democracy" to these countries. Well, that is the only way things will ever begin to change over there. Are we to just keep threatening and bombing and getting involved in all of their problems? Where does it end?
The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.
The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.
In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.
If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.
I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.
So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.
Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.
Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?
I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.
So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.
Sarrin Gas is a weapon of mass destruction. The United States along with over 150 nations around the world signed the convention on chemical weapons treaty to ban its use anywhere in the world. It is band because as a weapon it is very indiscriminate in who it harms, far more than any conventional munition or weapon. Then there is what the victims experience as they die. It is a horrible death much worse than conventional weapons. Civilians are also disproportionately more likely to be effected because the military forces are often equipped with means to defend against such weapons such as pro-masks, suits, as well as air filtration systems for armored vehicles like tanks etc. So it is a weapon where innocent civilians are far more likely to suffer majority of the casualties and the effects on the body. For civilians, it is a more dangerous weapon producing a much higher casualty rate for civilians than if conventional bombs had been used in the attack.
If there is no penalty for violating the Chemical Weapons treaty which Syria and over 150 countries signed, then there is no deterrent to its further use by Syria as well as other countries around the world. This puts the lives of civilians, including American civilians in greater jeopardy of experiencing such an attack and suffering its effects. It also makes it more likely that other WMD such as Biological Weapons and Nuclear Weapons will be produced and used.
If you want to live in a world where casual use of WMD is banned and non-existent, then you should support military operations against the Assad regime to prevent and deter any further use of Chemical Weapons. The military operation is not just to punish Assad, but to prevent and deter any other nation from every using or considering the use of Chemical weapons in the future including their use against United States citizens. It is enforcement of the treaty on the ban of chemical weapons which makes the world safer for everyone including United States citizens. That treaty is weakened and the proliferation and use of chemical weapons against anyone in the world grows more likely if the treaty is not strongly enforced including using military force to punish violators and bring about compliance.
This is a really good post and a great point. However, how do we even know there was actually a chemical attack? Who can we believe anymore? It seems like this is always the "excuse" given to get us involved in foreign problems. WE are war weary and want a break!
The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.
The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.
In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.
If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.
I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.
So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.
Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.
Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?
I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.
So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.
Sarrin Gas is a weapon of mass destruction. The United States along with over 150 nations around the world signed the convention on chemical weapons treaty to ban its use anywhere in the world. It is band because as a weapon it is very indiscriminate in who it harms, far more than any conventional munition or weapon. Then there is what the victims experience as they die. It is a horrible death much worse than conventional weapons. Civilians are also disproportionately more likely to be effected because the military forces are often equipped with means to defend against such weapons such as pro-masks, suits, as well as air filtration systems for armored vehicles like tanks etc. So it is a weapon where innocent civilians are far more likely to suffer majority of the casualties and the effects on the body. For civilians, it is a more dangerous weapon producing a much higher casualty rate for civilians than if conventional bombs had been used in the attack.
If there is no penalty for violating the Chemical Weapons treaty which Syria and over 150 countries signed, then there is no deterrent to its further use by Syria as well as other countries around the world. This puts the lives of civilians, including American civilians in greater jeopardy of experiencing such an attack and suffering its effects. It also makes it more likely that other WMD such as Biological Weapons and Nuclear Weapons will be produced and used.
If you want to live in a world where casual use of WMD is banned and non-existent, then you should support military operations against the Assad regime to prevent and deter any further use of Chemical Weapons. The military operation is not just to punish Assad, but to prevent and deter any other nation from every using or considering the use of Chemical weapons in the future including their use against United States citizens. It is enforcement of the treaty on the ban of chemical weapons which makes the world safer for everyone including United States citizens. That treaty is weakened and the proliferation and use of chemical weapons against anyone in the world grows more likely if the treaty is not strongly enforced including using military force to punish violators and bring about compliance.
This is a really good post and a great point. However, how do we even know there was actually a chemical attack? Who can we believe anymore? It seems like this is always the "excuse" given to get us involved in foreign problems. WE are war weary and want a break!
Well, I'm sure the Police and fireman as well as doctors and nurses get tired sometimes of the important work they do in your or others communities, but the work must continue because it is vital to the community. U.S. Foreign Police and the use of military force is the same thing. The United States can take a break in defending the country and its interest around the world, or the country will suffer the consequences.
