Heh heh.
Be careful, I tried to make that Monsanto GMO argument over to the Nutrition and other parts of this forum
and they disagree with it… apparently the long term evidence, and even short term evidence on being
harmful is sketchy at best…And I think many here mistakenly connect the people who believe GMO is bad for you
are same people that believe contrails are a government conspiracy and the Iluminati are out to get you,
Aaaahhhhhhh!!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“This red line was not set by me, but the entire world…”
- Obama
[/quote]
I heard that today. Absolutely ridiculous.
[/quote]
How so? It is in the Geneva convention, the UN charter and has been in place for every modern president. I’m not saying he hasn’t waffled but he didn’t create the policy against chemical weapons.
Personally I think it is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
[/quote]
Yes, but Bam is the one who blabbed the words, “…red line…”
JB is right, Bam is a world class pussy with red lines of lack of credibility scattered everywhere.
All he’s ever been good at is community organizing. He never was and never will be presidential material.[/quote]
Sooner or later, he was going to be exposed.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“This red line was not set by me, but the entire world…”
- Obama
[/quote]
I heard that today. Absolutely ridiculous.
[/quote]
How so? It is in the Geneva convention, the UN charter and has been in place for every modern president. I’m not saying he hasn’t waffled but he didn’t create the policy against chemical weapons.
Personally I think it is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
[/quote]
Now you are just kidding yourself. The Geneva convention did set this. But Obama stated very clearly that using chemical weapons was a line in the sand. There is proof that Assad has used Chemical weapons multiple times, I have heard 100 times, in this civil war. Obama did nothing, now all of a sudden it is not HIS fault, but the rest of the world’s fault. If he is so convinced why is he waiting? Make the call he is the Commander in Chief. Why did he not call back congress immediately?
[/quote]
Wait, so you have seen this proof? Hundreds of times? Thats bullshit, there has been ONE incident that I have seen reported on and the UN has been urging the united states to wait until the evidence is in conclusively. Aside from that he had to make his case to congress, which means he has to convince them to go along with him on something when they nearly always do the opposite.
He should have just said he was strongly opposed and they would be lobbing missiles as we speak just to spite him.[/quote]
The Commander-in-Chief is the one that makes the decision on when to lob missiles. Congress can only give him permission to go to War or use Military Force.
Hugh Hewitt which is a National Talk Show Radio Host has made the argument that Obama could have lobbed some missiles in there without Congresses Approval. Obama did it in Libya why not Syria?
Why did we hear about this use of chemical weapons? 1500 civilians were killed in a city. If they used smaller amounts and only killed 50 people that were opposition fighters then it would just be war and not covered under the Geneva Convention. All we know is that chemical weapons were used, not who used them, and how many times. And if you read my post I stated, I heard 100 times, which makes it hearsay not probable.
Obama needs to grow some nuts and actually start making decisions. He tried to make the claim he could make decisions when we took out Osama bin Laden. Now he just can not pull the trigger. Jewbacca is right. Launch some missiles or not. The Opposition wants a full scale invasion and the US is not ready for that. Obama just wants to blame another war on the Republicans.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“This red line was not set by me, but the entire world…”
- Obama
[/quote]
I heard that today. Absolutely ridiculous.
[/quote]
How so? It is in the Geneva convention, the UN charter and has been in place for every modern president. I’m not saying he hasn’t waffled but he didn’t create the policy against chemical weapons.
Personally I think it is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
[/quote]
Now you are just kidding yourself. The Geneva convention did set this. But Obama stated very clearly that using chemical weapons was a line in the sand. There is proof that Assad has used Chemical weapons multiple times, I have heard 100 times, in this civil war. Obama did nothing, now all of a sudden it is not HIS fault, but the rest of the world’s fault. If he is so convinced why is he waiting? Make the call he is the Commander in Chief. Why did he not call back congress immediately?
[/quote]
Wait, so you have seen this proof? Hundreds of times? Thats bullshit, there has been ONE incident that I have seen reported on and the UN has been urging the united states to wait until the evidence is in conclusively. Aside from that he had to make his case to congress, which means he has to convince them to go along with him on something when they nearly always do the opposite.
He should have just said he was strongly opposed and they would be lobbing missiles as we speak just to spite him.[/quote]
The Commander-in-Chief is the one that makes the decision on when to lob missiles. Congress can only give him permission to go to War or use Military Force.
Hugh Hewitt which is a National Talk Show Radio Host has made the argument that Obama could have lobbed some missiles in there without Congresses Approval. Obama did it in Libya why not Syria?
Why did we hear about this use of chemical weapons? 1500 civilians were killed in a city. If they used smaller amounts and only killed 50 people that were opposition fighters then it would just be war and not covered under the Geneva Convention. All we know is that chemical weapons were used, not who used them, and how many times. And if you read my post I stated, I heard 100 times, which makes it hearsay not probable.
Obama needs to grow some nuts and actually start making decisions. He tried to make the claim he could make decisions when we took out Osama bin Laden. Now he just can not pull the trigger. Jewbacca is right. Launch some missiles or not. The Opposition wants a full scale invasion and the US is not ready for that. Obama just wants to blame another war on the Republicans.
[/quote]
How long before he blames it on a video ?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Isn’t that one of the reasons claimed for Iraq, so that the people could elect their own leader and to remove a dictator? Isn’t that also the big to do in Egypt, about them finally being able to elect a leader, seeing it didn’t really work out, and wanting a second go at it?
Not being argumentative, just asking as I seem to recall those phrases being thrown around a lot. Most likely by our lovely media.[/quote]
With apologies to Adam Baldwin,
“Flush out your headgear, new guy. This isn’t about democracy; this is a slaughter. If I’m gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is ‘poontang’”.
The idea of a nation expending blood and treasure to protect democracy in another country where it is threatened, or to build it where it doesn’t exist, is as big a crock of shit now as it was when Woodrow Asshat Wilson said it a hundred years ago, and probably when Pericles or some other Athenian dweeb said it twenty-five hundred years ago.
We invest money, resources and the lives of our young men and women in international adventures that we imagine will be profitable. We go to war for the same reasons every expansive, aggressive empire has always gone to war for: to procure territory, trading rights, resources, slaves, and political influence which will guarantee them far into the future.
When Saddam Hussein did business with us, he was our friend. Ditto Muommar Gaddaffi, Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al-Assad, Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden. Once their activities were no longer contributing to our bottom line, they could be phased out. We are seeing this process at work right now in Syria.
The Syrian (or Egyptian, or Iraqi, or Afghan, or Lybian) people’s right of self-determination is worth precisely zero in the current political and military calculation.
Any word to the contrary is spoken either by someone extremely idealistic and naive, or by someone paid by somebody to say it, in order to deceive and distract idealistically naive people. [/quote]
Guess I stand corrected. I never stated I believed this was the reason, just that I could have sworn that past Presidents (and maybe this one) have said it. Hence why I asked why we feel the need to share Democracy. It is apparent that the soldiers, generals, and military forces could care less about the sharing of Democracy, my only comment was whether it was another excuse used to go to war for other agendas (like money, influence, oil, etc.).
From your post, it appears it has been stated at least by someone to try and sell the idea. So I guess it has happened. Please don’t confuse my beliefs for the questions I’m asking, its just for the sake of clarity and learning.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Isn’t that one of the reasons claimed for Iraq, so that the people could elect their own leader and to remove a dictator? Isn’t that also the big to do in Egypt, about them finally being able to elect a leader, seeing it didn’t really work out, and wanting a second go at it?
Not being argumentative, just asking as I seem to recall those phrases being thrown around a lot. Most likely by our lovely media.[/quote]
With apologies to Adam Baldwin,
“Flush out your headgear, new guy. This isn’t about democracy; this is a slaughter. If I’m gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is ‘poontang’”.
The idea of a nation expending blood and treasure to protect democracy in another country where it is threatened, or to build it where it doesn’t exist, is as big a crock of shit now as it was when Woodrow Asshat Wilson said it a hundred years ago, and probably when Pericles or some other Athenian dweeb said it twenty-five hundred years ago.
We invest money, resources and the lives of our young men and women in international adventures that we imagine will be profitable. We go to war for the same reasons every expansive, aggressive empire has always gone to war for: to procure territory, trading rights, resources, slaves, and political influence which will guarantee them far into the future.
When Saddam Hussein did business with us, he was our friend. Ditto Muommar Gaddaffi, Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al-Assad, Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden. Once their activities were no longer contributing to our bottom line, they could be phased out. We are seeing this process at work right now in Syria.
The Syrian (or Egyptian, or Iraqi, or Afghan, or Lybian) people’s right of self-determination is worth precisely zero in the current political and military calculation.
Any word to the contrary is spoken either by someone extremely idealistic and naive, or by someone paid by somebody to say it, in order to deceive and distract idealistically naive people. [/quote]
Guess I stand corrected. I never stated I believed this was the reason, just that I could have sworn that past Presidents (and maybe this one) have said it. Hence why I asked why we feel the need to share Democracy. It is apparent that the soldiers, generals, and military forces could care less about the sharing of Democracy, my only comment was whether it was another excuse used to go to war for other agendas (like money, influence, oil, etc.).
From your post, it appears it has been stated at least by someone to try and sell the idea. So I guess it has happened. Please don’t confuse my beliefs for the questions I’m asking, its just for the sake of clarity and learning. [/quote]
I don’t actually think you’re one of the idealistically naive people I referred to above, QT, but there is a lot of self delusion in his country over why we might be politically or militarily active in one country or another.
Fact is, any number of lies have been told to the citizens of every country throughout the ages to compel their financial and moral support, not to mention their committing their lives and the lives of their children to a venture that essentially amounts to armed robbery, mass murder and extortion.
We never describe our adventures in these terms, however. We are always “defending liberty” or “protecting our way of life” or “winning glory and honor” or “spreading democracy”. It’s the same old tune, with different lyrics each century.
The old lie: dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.
I saw an interesting thread on another forum I read (a survivalist forum) that mentions the discovery a massive Natural Gas find in Syria shortly before all of this started… how about that for an exciting dynamic? Wonder, if its true, how many people know about that and what the American public’s response would be if it became mainstream.
Apparently the field has been known about for some time to the geological folks, but its still nonethless an impressive prospect. $480 billion is a lot of money - I mean that’s… almost 3% of our national debt!
Also, it appears the US is becoming a mercenary nation (kind of cool in a video game sense).
Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday?s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
?With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,? Kerry said. ?They have. That offer is on the table.?
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
?In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we?ve done it previously in other places, they?ll carry that cost,? Kerry said. ?That?s how dedicated they are at this. That?s not in the cards, and nobody?s talking about it, but they?re talking in serious ways about getting this done.
What an irony all this of this is. Just a few years ago millions of Muslims around the world protested, burned. looted and murdered because some guy drew cartoons of their ‘Prophet’.
Now, SUPPOSEDLY thousands of Muslim women and children are gassed to death,…and not a fucking peep. Nothing.
Only Kerry and Obama making any noise. We should be very suspicious of the ‘evidence’, or perhaps insist that the Arab League, or some other collection of Arab states, settle this thing with Assad. The U.S. has no dog in this fight and we need to stay the fuck out.
Enough with the propaganda to draw us in. Gulf of Tonkin, WMD’s, and now gassed civilians in Syria…like that is our problem?
Let the Muslims handle this quagmire.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
And if you read my post I stated, I heard 100 times, which makes it hearsay not probable.
[/quote]
My bad I misread your original post.
I still stand by my opinion that regardless of what he had done the right would have found fault with it.
So I watch this sloooooooowly unfold and so far all I hear is talk. This guy is gutless. At least Clinton, when he decided to handle the Serbs, just fucking did it. When Bush decided to handle Afghanistan and Iraq, he did it. Obama has decided to handle Syria, sometime, maybe, possibly, if he can get a consensus. His indecisiveness and tentativeness scares me. Either do it, or don’t do it, but don’t kinda do it.
If we are going to get engaged, we bomb the fuck out of Syria for 100 days non-stop and make it work toward our advantage. I am afraid he’s going to lob 20 missiles, said he did something and wash his hands of it, meanwhile the region gets more embedded in the quagmire. I don’t like these games, if we are going to bomb them, then let’s bomb the ever live shit out of them and end it. Limited engagement my ass. Either a sustained meaningful engagement, or no engagement. Anybody disagree?
[quote]pat wrote:
So I watch this sloooooooowly unfold and so far all I hear is talk. This guy is gutless. At least Clinton, when he decided to handle the Serbs, just fucking did it. When Bush decided to handle Afghanistan and Iraq, he did it. Obama has decided to handle Syria, sometime, maybe, possibly, if he can get a consensus. His indecisiveness and tentativeness scares me. Either do it, or don’t do it, but don’t kinda do it.
If we are going to get engaged, we bomb the fuck out of Syria for 100 days non-stop and make it work toward our advantage. I am afraid he’s going to lob 20 missiles, said he did something and wash his hands of it, meanwhile the region gets more embedded in the quagmire. I don’t like these games, if we are going to bomb them, then let’s bomb the ever live shit out of them and end it. Limited engagement my ass. Either a sustained meaningful engagement, or no engagement. Anybody disagree? [/quote]
I think at this point both sides are unfriendly to us. If we are going to go over there we might as well hit Hezbollah (fighting for Assad) and Al Queda (fighting for the rebels) as hard as we can. Can we just launch a lot of missles at both sides and damage them both then let them continue fighting in their weakened state? I don’t really see a good outcome to any of this for us.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Isn’t that one of the reasons claimed for Iraq, so that the people could elect their own leader and to remove a dictator? Isn’t that also the big to do in Egypt, about them finally being able to elect a leader, seeing it didn’t really work out, and wanting a second go at it?
Not being argumentative, just asking as I seem to recall those phrases being thrown around a lot. Most likely by our lovely media.[/quote]
With apologies to Adam Baldwin,
“Flush out your headgear, new guy. This isn’t about democracy; this is a slaughter. If I’m gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is ‘poontang’”.
The idea of a nation expending blood and treasure to protect democracy in another country where it is threatened, or to build it where it doesn’t exist, is as big a crock of shit now as it was when Woodrow Asshat Wilson said it a hundred years ago, and probably when Pericles or some other Athenian dweeb said it twenty-five hundred years ago.
We invest money, resources and the lives of our young men and women in international adventures that we imagine will be profitable. We go to war for the same reasons every expansive, aggressive empire has always gone to war for: to procure territory, trading rights, resources, slaves, and political influence which will guarantee them far into the future.
When Saddam Hussein did business with us, he was our friend. Ditto Muommar Gaddaffi, Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al-Assad, Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden. Once their activities were no longer contributing to our bottom line, they could be phased out. We are seeing this process at work right now in Syria.
The Syrian (or Egyptian, or Iraqi, or Afghan, or Lybian) people’s right of self-determination is worth precisely zero in the current political and military calculation.
Any word to the contrary is spoken either by someone extremely idealistic and naive, or by someone paid by somebody to say it, in order to deceive and distract idealistically naive people. [/quote]
You sir have foolishly forgotten the age old reason for acts of war, YouTube video.
Please, please try and keep your posts accurate. 
Interesting take from Paul on the matter. Doesn’t seem to be ashamed of either playing politics, or admitting that “what we have to gain” is the utmost importance in whether ot not to go to war.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You sir have foolishly forgotten the age old reason for acts of war, YouTube video.
Please, please try and keep your posts accurate. ;)[/quote]
Heavens, how could I have overlooked that one? Actually, not sure I know which one you mean, so I’ll post this one in the meantime.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You sir have foolishly forgotten the age old reason for acts of war, YouTube video.
Please, please try and keep your posts accurate. ;)[/quote]
Heavens, how could I have overlooked that one? Actually, not sure I know which one you mean, so I’ll post this one in the meantime.
[/quote]
Ahhh Yes, the YouTube video that sparked the Tet Offensive.
I hope the maker of this film is doing jail time to get justice for the mother’s and father’s of the slain soldiers.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So I watch this sloooooooowly unfold and so far all I hear is talk. This guy is gutless. At least Clinton, when he decided to handle the Serbs, just fucking did it. When Bush decided to handle Afghanistan and Iraq, he did it. Obama has decided to handle Syria, sometime, maybe, possibly, if he can get a consensus. His indecisiveness and tentativeness scares me. Either do it, or don’t do it, but don’t kinda do it.
If we are going to get engaged, we bomb the fuck out of Syria for 100 days non-stop and make it work toward our advantage. I am afraid he’s going to lob 20 missiles, said he did something and wash his hands of it, meanwhile the region gets more embedded in the quagmire. I don’t like these games, if we are going to bomb them, then let’s bomb the ever live shit out of them and end it. Limited engagement my ass. Either a sustained meaningful engagement, or no engagement. Anybody disagree? [/quote]
I think at this point both sides are unfriendly to us. If we are going to go over there we might as well hit Hezbollah (fighting for Assad) and Al Queda (fighting for the rebels) as hard as we can. Can we just launch a lot of missles at both sides and damage them both then let them continue fighting in their weakened state? I don’t really see a good outcome to any of this for us.[/quote]
I agree. Honestly, I don’t see the ‘red line’ with using chemical vs. shooting people or blowing them up. If we were going to get involved we should have done it while there was a ‘good side’ to be on, or a less bad one at least. I don’t see a limited engagement being the answer here.
It’s a pickle no doubt. You don’t want to sit around and watch innocent people get slaughtered. You don’t want to get in harms way and you don’t want Syria to become a terrorist state.
The answer, I think, lies in the world’s least popular option of all, nation building. A thorough and sustained bombing campaign taking out all enemy targets, Assad and Rebel alike, move in the troops, and establish a new government for them.
Nobody will support that. Nobody wants that, but that is the only option if you want that situation actually resolved and not just band-aided.
Hey it’s not uncharted territory for us. And it actually does work, it’s simply not popular.
Bush II’s mistake in Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter), militarily speaking, was the lack of a continuous, well sustained air campaign. If we had softened the ground enough with air power, a lot of the problems, including the duration of the war would have been preempted.
Our air power is pretty much like Marino Rivera’s cut fastball. You know it’s coming, you know what it does, and you cannot do a damn thing about it.
I have rolled it over and over and really, anything outside of full scale invasion and nation building, I see little good coming from American involvement.
So full scale invasion of Syria! Who’s with me?? No one? Not a single person? Oh well. Bottomline, you want a good outcome for the U.S., that’s your real, unsugar-coated answer.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357662/rand-pauls-war-robert-costa?splash=
Really starting to like this dude.
He isn’t his father, but seems to share most of the good stuff and not so much of the bad stuff.
[quote]pat wrote:
So full scale invasion of Syria! Who’s with me?? No one? Not a single person? Oh well. Bottomline, you want a good outcome for the U.S., that’s your real, unsugar-coated answer.[/quote]
Even with all of that it wouldn’t guarantee a good outcome. The middle easterners hold grudges for centuries.
We as a nation could be dissolved and reformed and they would still hate us for the rest of existence.
I said this before on here and I will say it again. You get into another war or two and the US is going to make itself history in its current state.
Syria? The US administration doesn’t care about who used what on whom. If this was the case then I guess genocide is allowed? Tamil civilians were caught between two sides and nobody gave one care in the world about them.
I wonder what happened to the thousands of men, women and children that lived there? Oh because it wasn’t involving chemical weapons but tanks, planes, helicopters and machetes.
Does anybody on here not see this for what it is? Why does the US want in on Syria and thinks it can be done and dusted?
Iran rings a bell. A close ally of Syria and Russia and a constant thorn in Israels side. Remove one and the other one is exposed…hmmm, seems like someone is playing the long strategic aim for creating excuses to get at Iran.
Yeah, lets see Russia accept US strikes on Iran without involving themselves. They see US foregn policy for what it is and now we in Britain do too. I suggest you have a regime change yourselves before Russia does it for you.