RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes

RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/29/2013 10:16:47 PM)
LOL.. Comparisons with bush are.. funny. Bush got dozens of nations to line up as our allies. Obama - can't even get our most loyal ally. Some people turn everything they touch to gold. Others to .. excrement. We're going to fire missiles into syria to do.. what exactly? Tell Bashir not to use chemical weapons. Don't kill quite so many people? 100,000 dead in Syria and O's trigger was... 700? Now, if Obama wanted to send a drone to take out Bashir.. seems to me that makes more sense. But of course.. whats the winning answer now? Take out bashir - - do you have the cojones to make sure Islamacists don't take over? Of course you don't. And .. while we're at it... O has managed to make it so that no matter what happens - we lose. The moderates hate us for not providing aid. The islamacists don't need a reason to hate us. Bashir etc - well.. after this little debacle.. you can think they might really not much care for O & co., Brilliant.

BamaD -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/29/2013 11:07:40 PM)
The problem with getting involved in Syria is, as stated above, all sides hate us. Napoleon had a saying, "when your enemies are destroying each other, don't interrupt" .

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 3:36:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Well maybe you can start by telling us where Asswad got his? Are you incapable of your own research, or are you really wishing to go down the "got them from Iraq" route ? Oh okay, I`ll stop teasing you.....The answer is Russia.

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 3:49:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "kinda like Bush"....... Can I laugh yet ? Get back to me when Obama lies about WMD`s I have expressed this many times in other places, so I might as well say it here too claiming that bush LIED about WMD's is akin to claiming that everyone who beleives something is true and turns out to be wrong is a LIAR sorry NOO, that makes that person MISTAKEN, AKA WRONG, many sources INCLUDING bill clinton flatly stated that saddam absolutley DID have WMD's and his refusal to allow UN inspectors to look for them added credibility to that claim. its OK if you want to claim when someone is WRONG that makes them a LIAR, just be sure not to be offended when you are WRONG about something and people call you a LIAR TOO! MAYBE bush did lie about it, maybe he truely BELEIVED it to be true, I am not a mind reader, personally I refuse to LABEL someone a LIAR, because they were WRONG! Its a shame you can use your caps lock but not use goggle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-ignored-evidence-from-senior-iraqis-that-wmds-did-not-exist-8538286.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-a-war-of-aggression-no-wmds-no-connection-to-al-qaeda/5327548 http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/ How many more lies do you want me to copy for you ? [8\|]

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 3:51:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux LOL.. Comparisons with bush are.. funny. Bush got dozens of nations to line up as our allies. Obama - can't even get our most loyal ally. Some people turn everything they touch to gold. Others to .. excrement. We're going to fire missiles into syria to do.. what exactly? Tell Bashir not to use chemical weapons. Don't kill quite so many people? 100,000 dead in Syria and O's trigger was... 700? Now, if Obama wanted to send a drone to take out Bashir.. seems to me that makes more sense. But of course.. whats the winning answer now? Take out bashir - - do you have the cojones to make sure Islamacists don't take over? Of course you don't. And .. while we're at it... O has managed to make it so that no matter what happens - we lose. The moderates hate us for not providing aid. The islamacists don't need a reason to hate us. Bashir etc - well.. after this little debacle.. you can think they might really not much care for O & co., Brilliant. I am guessing you have read why our Parliament voted against taking action ? No, I didnt think so.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 3:53:07 AM)
sweet jesu did he really say that? really claiming that bush lied to ALL the allies and claims its agood thing and Obama ...is a loser? REALLY? shitty death

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 3:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'll laugh right along with you, Polite. Bush had the Dems (and the Brits too, for that matter) dancing to his fiddle, and giving him all he wanted. President Obama is completely incompetent to accomplish anything like that. As for the WMD's, you are aware that the use of chemical weapons falls square into that category, that this administration has repeatedly demonstrated they are quite ok with lying to the public, and WMD will be his only justification, so be careful what you wish for. Laugh all you like Rich, but the joke is on you. Bush and Blairs bullshit is the reason Cameron wont be able to act, despite there being actual evidence this time around.

JeffBC -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 4:06:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I would rather see us start the practice of staying out of war/military action. And I, for one, would like to know if any of our conservatives on board here have any thoughts about how we're going to pay for this little adventure. In theory, shouldn't a fiscally conservative person always be asking that question? (general question not to you specifically DS) I also have some unfortunate thoughts about little issues like "national sovereignty". That makes it hard for me to go in and do these police actions without UN support. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the unadorned "might makes right" theory.

PeonForHer -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 4:46:43 AM)
FR Maybe not the US alone. The French may be on board: http://news.yahoo.com/france-military-ready-syria-needed-092651128.html

JeffBC -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 4:52:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Maybe not the US alone. The French may be on board OK, but for anyone who thinks beyond might makes right that's not exactly an improvement. The closest we have is the UN for sanctioning interventions like this. It's corrupt as hell but it's something. In the end though it hardly matters. THe US is virtually forced to go to war against someone pretty soon here. You can't spend the kind of money we do on military and not use it. People might start asking some questions.

Zonie63 -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:15:34 AM)
I think it's a dangerous strategy to go against Syria unilaterally. This is different from Iraq, as U.S. action was ostensibly justified by Iraq's proven aggression towards its neighbors and was deemed a threat to regional stability for that reason (with or without WMDs). Strictly speaking, the 2003 invasion of Iraq never really should have happened at all, since they should have forced Saddam's capitulation back in 1991. I always considered the whole WMD angle to be a red herring, since the only reason Iraq was on our shitlist to begin with was over the invasion of Kuwait and the threat they posed to other Persian Gulf nations (as well as Israel). As for Syria, that's a completely different can of worms that would be better left contained to within Syria's borders. For one thing, even Britain is against the idea, so it's a fair bet that the rest of the world would not look very kindly on a U.S. attack on Syria. I can sense that Russia's patience is wearing thin. Besides, intervention in any civil war is always a dangerous gambit. It's gambling that you'll be on the winning side, but if you're not, then you've got another hostile government in the region. Another problem is that whatever side is backed by the U.S. is automatically politically hobbled because they would be perceived as a U.S. puppet, which would be a rallying point for anyone supporting the other side. On the other hand, I think the Israelis might be pretty nervous about what's going on in Syria and Egypt these days, and since the U.S. is Israel's ally, circumstances may obligate us to take a more active role. But I think we should be careful. At least the major powers are talking and the lines of communication are open, so there may yet be a diplomatic solution. I'd like to believe that the current Administration is a bit saner than previous Administrations, although it's hard to say.

Yachtie -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:18:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "kinda like Bush"....... Can I laugh yet ? Get back to me when Obama lies about WMD`s Only WMDs? Really? [8\|] Really......... Do I have to pont out what a chemical weapon is, or who has them, and who didnt have them, or everything else you seem to be overlooking ? I was not referring to WMDs, but to Obama lying. That escaped you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:18:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC And I, for one, would like to know if any of our conservatives on board here have any thoughts about how we're going to pay for this little adventure. In theory, shouldn't a fiscally conservative person always be asking that question? (general question not to you specifically DS) I also have some unfortunate thoughts about little issues like "national sovereignty". That makes it hard for me to go in and do these police actions without UN support. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the unadorned "might makes right" theory. This was my main issue with intervention in Libya. Qaddafi was using his air force against his own people (insurgents, rebels, revolutionaries, whatever). It was within the borders of Libya. Who are we to dictate? Who is the UN to dictate? We invaded a sovereign nation. Just to nitpick, the President isn't a Conservative by any stretch. The Republicans (thus, most of the actual Conservatives, thought there are Conservative Democrats; and by no means am I saying that all Republicans are Conservatives) are throwing up warning signs. That might just be because it's a Democrat President who didn't play nice with them regarding Libya. Or, it could be that... Hell, that's probably the only reason. [:)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:20:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Maybe not the US alone. The French may be on board: http://news.yahoo.com/france-military-ready-syria-needed-092651128.html How is that not the same? [8D] (Apologies to any French members of CM. I couldn't resist the jab.)

PeonForHer -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:25:25 AM)
OK. I tittered. [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:48:23 AM)
Marginally better than Italians, at any rate. I don't like the whole deal, I would rather we do a Libya thing there if we are going to do something, and let them fight it out on level grounds, but we are not going to be bringing our brand of enlightenment to that portion of the globe ever.

JeffBC -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who is the UN to dictate? We invaded a sovereign nation. Yeah, the UN is sketchy as hell, I agree. But honestly sometimes really horrific thing do happen and with enough of a formal consensus from somewhere I'd be willing to act. I don't want to be entirely incapacitated in terms of stopping evil. At some point "national sovereignty" must also have some checks and balances somewhere in this global era. Regarding the finance jab, I was more talking about the conservatives on this board who were pro war. If you want to say "go" I want to know how you're paying for it. Actually though, let me amend that statement to "anyone on this board who is pro-war". If it's a politician saying it I want to know if the funding plan is to literally steal money from our parents and grandparents or are they planning on defunding some other program. I want to see the cost/benefit analysis and under no circumstances am I cool with straight-up theft from social security.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 5:57:22 AM)
I think we may dictate, due to our prominance and arrogance, I think that the UN being involved is to get enough consensus that nobody else is going to try to do something stupid enough so that it makes it sort of not worth starting a world war. Assurances of non-intervention by the opposite side of the aisle in the matter, more or less.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 6:14:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who is the UN to dictate? We invaded a sovereign nation. Yeah, the UN is sketchy as hell, I agree. But honestly sometimes really horrific thing do happen and with enough of a formal consensus from somewhere I'd be willing to act. I don't want to be entirely incapacitated in terms of stopping evil. At some point "national sovereignty" must also have some checks and balances somewhere in this global era. Regarding the finance jab, I was more talking about the conservatives on this board who were pro war. If you want to say "go" I want to know how you're paying for it. Actually though, let me amend that statement to "anyone on this board who is pro-war". If it's a politician saying it I want to know if the funding plan is to literally steal money from our parents and grandparents or are they planning on defunding some other program. I want to see the cost/benefit analysis and under no circumstances am I cool with straight-up theft from social security. Why steal from our parents/grandparents when we can steal from our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren (and, likely, each generation after)? We won't lose their votes in the next election, after all. This shit is all fucked up. No doubt at all. Until 2009, Bush wasn't running deficits over $500B. Only 2 of his years were there deficits in the $400B range. Two years were in the $300B range; one in the $200B range, and 2 in the $200B range. It's not as if we weren't raking in the dough, either. If we assign 2001 to Clinton and 2009 to Bush (which is what I did with the deficits mentioned here), there are only three years where receipts were less than the previous year (2002, 2003, and 2009), all due to recessions hammering our Economy. Sadly, outlays have continued to go up every year since 1965 (outlays in 1965 were $300M less than in 1964).

DaddySatyr -> RE: Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes (8/30/2013 6:17:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC And I, for one, would like to know if any of our conservatives on board here have any thoughts about how we're going to pay for this little adventure. In theory, shouldn't a fiscally conservative person always be asking that question? (general question not to you specifically DS) I am a fiscal conservative and monetarily speaking, we can't afford this. We're in Shit City financially, already. There is *some* truth to the idea that wars create jobs/generate income but I have never found this to be a good reason to go to war. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I also have some unfortunate thoughts about little issues like "national sovereignty". That makes it hard for me to go in and do these police actions without UN support. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the unadorned "might makes right" theory. This is always an objection of mine in these circumstances. I am sick and tired of being "The World's Police Force". It does nothing for us except to make enemies; no matter what the outcome. I no longer have a dog in this fight. As I celebrate my last birthday of my first half century, I have already lost some of my most precious blood in this bullshit. I don't care if a bunch of idiots, half-way around the world, want to kill each other in the name of their God. If they fuck with us, that's a different story. Someone mentioned Israel. Israel is our ally, when it's convenient for them. They have frequently rubbed our nose in it, when it was in their best interests. I don't know if anyone else remembers Desert Storm, when they were getting hit with SCUD missiles. We sent Patriot missiles to help them defend against these attacks. They wouldn't let us send the personel who knew how to operate them. Then, they bitched and made us "the bad guys" when the Patriots didn't work as well as they'd hoped. Tough shitski. They can't have it both ways ... again quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Maybe not the US alone. The French may be on board OK, but for anyone who thinks beyond might makes right that's not exactly an improvement. The closest we have is the UN for sanctioning interventions like this. It's corrupt as hell but it's something. In the end though it hardly matters. THe US is virtually forced to go to war against someone pretty soon here. You can't spend the kind of money we do on military and not use it. People might start asking some questions. I forget to whom the original quote is attributed but, it's fairly famous ... "The French: They're there, when they need you". I would encourage the current US leadership to enlist *anyone's* help in this endeavor, if we're going to actually use force but, I would caution against calling upon the French as I fear such a call might precipitate a French surrender. Regards, George S. Patton

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875