Syria Uproar?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wouldn’t it be funny if Obama turns out to have been just a Manchurian Candidate planted by the Russians in Chicago a decade ago with ex-KGB political handlers to nursemaid him to the presidency, with the sole purpose of making the United States look like a bunch of incompetent fools on the world stage, so that Russia could seize this very moment and take over its position as de facto world hegemon without firing a shot?

Boy, that sure would be embarrassing. [/quote]

I’d be relieved.

I like to believe that some outside power foisted this moron on America.

Much easier to take than to realize that we Americans got the leader we deserve.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wouldn’t it be funny if Obama turns out to have been just a Manchurian Candidate planted by the Russians in Chicago a decade ago with ex-KGB political handlers to nursemaid him to the presidency, with the sole purpose of making the United States look like a bunch of incompetent fools on the world stage, so that Russia could seize this very moment and take over its position as de facto world hegemon without firing a shot?

Boy, that sure would be embarrassing. [/quote]

I’d be relieved.

I like to believe that some outside power foisted this moron on America.

Much easier to take than to realize that we Americans got the leader we deserve.[/quote]

Yeah, but cold comfort realizing that half the country still voted him in. Twice.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wouldn’t it be funny if Obama turns out to have been just a Manchurian Candidate planted by the Russians in Chicago a decade ago with ex-KGB political handlers to nursemaid him to the presidency, with the sole purpose of making the United States look like a bunch of incompetent fools on the world stage, so that Russia could seize this very moment and take over its position as de facto world hegemon without firing a shot?

Boy, that sure would be embarrassing. [/quote]

I’d be relieved.

I like to believe that some outside power foisted this moron on America.

Much easier to take than to realize that we Americans got the leader we deserve.[/quote]

Yeah, but cold comfort realizing that half the country still voted him in. Twice.
[/quote]

Half of 30% of the country.

Social media and Hollywood got Obama elected.

It was going to be so “kewl” to have a black president.

We tried it here in Los Angeles in 2005, by electing the first Latino mayor.

He was going to be “bold”, and give Unions a 25% raise in the middle of a recession. He bankrupt the city in less than 8 years.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wouldn’t it be funny if Obama turns out to have been just a Manchurian Candidate planted by the Russians in Chicago a decade ago with ex-KGB political handlers to nursemaid him to the presidency, with the sole purpose of making the United States look like a bunch of incompetent fools on the world stage, so that Russia could seize this very moment and take over its position as de facto world hegemon without firing a shot?

Boy, that sure would be embarrassing. [/quote]

I’d be relieved.

I like to believe that some outside power foisted this moron on America.

Much easier to take than to realize that we Americans got the leader we deserve.[/quote]

Yeah, but cold comfort realizing that half the country still voted him in. Twice.
[/quote]

Half of 30% of the country.
[/quote]

There are 314 million people in the US, and 222 million of those are eligible voters. Only 130 million of those people voted in the last election. 66 million voted for Obama.

So it’s more like 29% of 70% of the country. Which is about 20%.

I hereby revise my statement.

Finding out that Obama was a Soviet plant all along would be cold comfort, realizing that a fifth of the country voted him in. Twice.

Happier?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wouldn’t it be funny if Obama turns out to have been just a Manchurian Candidate planted by the Russians in Chicago a decade ago with ex-KGB political handlers to nursemaid him to the presidency, with the sole purpose of making the United States look like a bunch of incompetent fools on the world stage, so that Russia could seize this very moment and take over its position as de facto world hegemon without firing a shot?

Boy, that sure would be embarrassing. [/quote]

I’d be relieved.

I like to believe that some outside power foisted this moron on America.

Much easier to take than to realize that we Americans got the leader we deserve.[/quote]

Yeah, but cold comfort realizing that half the country still voted him in. Twice.
[/quote]

Half of 30% of the country.
[/quote]

There are 314 million people in the US, and 222 million of those are eligible voters. Only 130 million of those people voted in the last election. 66 million voted for Obama.

So it’s more like 29% of 70% of the country. Which is about 20%.

I hereby revise my statement.

Finding out that Obama was a Soviet plant all along would be cold comfort, realizing that a fifth of the country voted him in. Twice.

Happier?[/quote]

yes. lol

It makes me wish life was as easy as being elected the POTUS. To think of all of the jobs I couldn’t get because of things like “no prior experience” or didn’t even get a reply from them to get a shot at working at Lowes or Home Depot. If only I could have just ran the company by making lots of general statements and empty promises. Stuff like “Geico, things can be different. Things aren’t good right now. I can make things better. You just have to believe.”. Also, it’s important to note that my speech would be on a middle school level so it’d be easy for the lowest common denominator to not be thrown off by big words.

[quote]b89 wrote:
But if Putin really had some strength with this there wouldn’t be any chemical weapon resolution.
[/quote]

You could very well be right, but that depends on the goal. If Putin is trying to be big brother for Syria then yes. But, if he is trying to take the place as “World Leader,” then in order to win over the nations on US’s side and look awesome, he has to play diplomat.

Which method of control is easier: forceful, or letting the people believe they are in control while slowly adjusting things behind the scenes to suit you?

If we look at the US, I’d say the latter. Putin I think is playing a game to get to the top. Then he’ll do whatever he has planned. Too soon, and he could blow it. And he has at least 3 more years to play, and maybe another 8 if Hitlery gets in office - because I don’t expect any better from her either.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Go figure, anti-war protestors aren’t good at conducting wars.

Why are we surprised Kerry and Obama can’t handle foreign policy?

Imagine hiring PETA’s director to run the cattle industry. Or the EPA administrator placed in charge of oil and natural gas exploration. Would anybody be surprised when things don’t go well?

Read more: Why are we surprised Kerry and Obama can’t handle foreign policy? | The Daily Caller
[/quote]

“We are a nation of Quakers, without either their morals or their motives.”

–John Armstrong, Jr, 1811, in a letter to Ambrose Spencer, criticizing James Madison’s bellicose stance before the War of 1812.

It rings true even 200 years later. But it is also noted that Armstrong was a disastrous Secretary of War for Madison, and he was largely responsible for the lack of defense of Washington, leading to its destruction by the British.

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:
But if Putin really had some strength with this there wouldn’t be any chemical weapon resolution.
[/quote]

You could very well be right, but that depends on the goal. If Putin is trying to be big brother for Syria then yes. But, if he is trying to take the place as “World Leader,” then in order to win over the nations on US’s side and look awesome, he has to play diplomat.

Which method of control is easier: forceful, or letting the people believe they are in control while slowly adjusting things behind the scenes to suit you?

If we look at the US, I’d say the latter. Putin I think is playing a game to get to the top. Then he’ll do whatever he has planned. Too soon, and he could blow it. And he has at least 3 more years to play, and maybe another 8 if Hitlery gets in office - because I don’t expect any better from her either.[/quote]

This seems worse than it really is, it’s because of the 24 hour news cycle. How many times has Russia been on the losing side of these games over the last few decades? More importantly, why should we be intervening in Syria anyway? It’s pointless, let them earn it if they want it. A lack of public support for openly intervening in Syria is a relief. Actually, we should tell Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to get Assad out their damn selves. If Russia was really a threat America wouldn’t even be fucking with them right now, it’d be like during the Korean war when Truman didn’t want to go after China because he feared Russia would get more involved. It’s open source information that America is actually going to give more funding to the rebels since we can’t just attack Assad ourselves.


Well…it looks like ol’ Dub was right.

I think the political game is ever-changing, and world leaders - especially those in the powerful countries, are always willing to take advantage when a situation presents itself. Obama is a weak leader both domestically and internationally. Putin sees right through it and is willing to take whatever he can get to jockey higher on the totem pole.

I haven’t read any articles the past few days, been too busy land-shopping, any update on this? Last I heard was US is still funding the terrorists… err I mean rebels regardless of public opinion or international feelings.

Did they hand over any chemical weapons, or did anything more develop?

Nothing much new, Iran’s new president is now playing the “we just wanna be friends” card in the Wa-Po.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing much new, Iran’s new president is now playing the “we just wanna be friends” card in the Wa-Po.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-of-iran-hassan-rouhani-time-to-engage/2013/09/19/4d2da564-213e-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html[/quote]

Wow.

That could have been written by an Obama speechwriter. Just change the proper nouns.

“Five years ago, my platform of “change and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Americans embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.”

Go through and read the article again, making the occasional minor change, and see if it doesn’t sound just as mealy-mouthed as something our own Dear Leader would say.

Yeah. The Iranians are nothing like us.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing much new, Iran’s new president is now playing the “we just wanna be friends” card in the Wa-Po.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-of-iran-hassan-rouhani-time-to-engage/2013/09/19/4d2da564-213e-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html[/quote]

Wow.

That could have been written by an Obama speechwriter. Just change the proper nouns.

“Five years ago, my platform of “change and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Americans embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.”

Go through and read the article again, making the occasional minor change, and see if it doesn’t sound just as mealy-mouthed as something our own Dear Leader would say.

Yeah. The Iranians are nothing like us. [/quote]

Another similarity is their president is controlled by the mullas pulling the strings.

We just don’t know who is running our president.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing much new, Iran’s new president is now playing the “we just wanna be friends” card in the Wa-Po.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-of-iran-hassan-rouhani-time-to-engage/2013/09/19/4d2da564-213e-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html[/quote]

Wow.

That could have been written by an Obama speechwriter. Just change the proper nouns.

“Five years ago, my platform of “change and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Americans embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.”

Go through and read the article again, making the occasional minor change, and see if it doesn’t sound just as mealy-mouthed as something our own Dear Leader would say.

Yeah. The Iranians are nothing like us. [/quote]

Another similarity is their president is controlled by the mullas pulling the strings.

We just don’t know who is running our president.[/quote]

I think we have a pretty good idea who the mullahs are in this country.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing much new, Iran’s new president is now playing the “we just wanna be friends” card in the Wa-Po.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-of-iran-hassan-rouhani-time-to-engage/2013/09/19/4d2da564-213e-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html[/quote]

Wow.

That could have been written by an Obama speechwriter. Just change the proper nouns.

“Five years ago, my platform of “change and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Americans embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.”

Go through and read the article again, making the occasional minor change, and see if it doesn’t sound just as mealy-mouthed as something our own Dear Leader would say.

Yeah. The Iranians are nothing like us. [/quote]

Another similarity is their president is controlled by the mullas pulling the strings.

We just don’t know who is running our president.[/quote]

I think we have a pretty good idea who the mullahs are in this country.
[/quote]

LOL touche’!

CBRNs are often referred to as weapons of mass destruction for a legitimate reason. They are less discriminate and far less predictable than most conventional weapons and they are better suited for strikes against civilian enclaves than against armies, which have but to change into the appropriate attire in order to render them useless.

But more importantly–and despite the fact that so many people love to point out that they “just don’t see the difference between death by asphyxiation and death by blast-force dismemberment,” which is as red a herring as there ever was and amounts in the end to the facile tautology that all lethal weapons are lethal–they delineate a path of escalation that moves swiftly and with unsettling ease in the direction of total war.

A combination of psychological and tactical factors play into this, but the more important point is that they lead to places that are best left to the imagination of dystopian fiction. Put simply, more CBRNs in more hands means a higher probability of catastrophic war and/or war that shaves chunks off the already laughably, vanishingly small amount of habitable land in the known universe. It’s easy to forget that every four years we choose a guy (or, perhaps someday, gal) who then chooses a single deputy to help him safe-keep a little briefcase that holds the potential end of life-on-Earth in its belly.

The more I’ve learned about people and their history over the course of my life, the less faith I’ve had in the old, “nah that just wouldn’t happen” safety blanket. I can see, vividly, some ragged band of deformed nomads sitting around a fire in the middle of a barren ashen wasteland, telling their kids about how relatively short the interim was between the day human civilization invented a way to utterly destroy itself and the day it decided to do it.

Which brings me to my opinion of this whole, messy Syria thing. “The strong do what they can and the weak do what they must.” Threaten force and suddenly, “yeah, we do in fact have chemical weapons. Good guess. And what’s more, we’ll give them to you.”

Say this whole thing goes through as we should all be hoping it does. We A] rid a grossly unstable ME country whose fate is highly uncertain and whose hills are increasingly swarming with Jihadists of weapons that could prove seriously useful to Hezbollah or to some sweaty fundamentalist dickhead in Grand Central Terminal someday and B] don’t waste a single Tomahawk or, more importantly, a single American life.

We are getting what we want. This is a good thing. “Putin looks so great right now.” Bullshit. He is the thuggish leader of a shithole with as much a claim to hard-power equivalency with the West as the Melians with Athens.

[Hopefully the US-Athenian analogy falls apart vis-a-vis ultimate outcomes.]