POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: WillyWump on August 27, 2013, 09:13:50 pm
-
I've been following this for awhile and now that it seems potentially the US might be getting involved with force I was wondering how you all feel.
Just in the last 24 hours the US has moved 4 destroyers just off the Syrian coast after chemical weapons were purportedly used by the govt against its civilians including women and children (for the second time)
Do you think we should Bomb Syrian Govt installations?
There is so much at play here, Are we sure it was the Govt and not the rebels who used the Chem weapons? The Admin (Biden and others) say they are certain it was the Govt, but can we be absolutely sure of our intelligence?
Both sides are pretty much "bad", on one side we have Syrias President Assad who is a brutal dictator, and on the other we have Rebels who are populated by terrorists and possibly Al queada.
Will bombing (targeted strikes) by the us drag us in deeper? Will it achieve anything? We cant take out the chemical weapons without boots on the ground, which the admin says is off the table. So are we just lobbing bombs (if we do) to show that we disapprove?
Do we do nothing and condone the gassing of innocent civilians?
-
If Syria had oil we would have been involved a long time ago.
If the US is serious about human rights we not only would have gone in earlier we wouldn't be doing "limited" strikes on limited government installations after the news showed hundreds of not thousands of dead civilians after being gassed.
We (the US) talk a good game about human rights. I wish we would put some action in our rhetoric.
-
Interesting , cruise missiles armed with human rights LOL . I do get your point but it seems all we may accomplish in this instance is to help to facilitate a way for a new dictator to come in .
If our goal is to kill a bunch of people to punish them for killing a bunch of people I see no point in it . If we keep invading country's that have not threatened us in any way because of a sense of moral imperative it wont end well eventually .
Im still not certain how I feel 100 % .
-
With all the recent revelations about what the government does, I'm surprised that we haven't woken up on morning to learn that the Syrian prez was taken out by a drone. Not that it's the right thing to do, but it would seem that the U.S. has the ability to do so. And it doesn't take a Congressional review to do it, does it? Maybe someone should be beating down the door of the UN to get this addressed? I've seen this nightly on the news but rarely do they mention the UN.
-
I understand your point and share your skepticism. If we would stop invading countries for reasons such as oil, and fabricated threats and upheld our moral standards by using diplomacy first and force as a last resort when countries do gas their people we would be in a lot less wars and the ones we would be in would have a larger worldwide support.
-
We do not need to get embroiled in another war with a country in the middle east. As far as I'm concerned we should pick up all our toys and go home.
-
Syria is a quagmire and I question the precise goal of a military intervention. Is the US going to choose a side in this civil war? Neither side seems worthy of our support. Is the purpose to prove to other countries that we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons? Should the US military targets those, confirm they are destroyed and let the Syrians continue their conflict using conventional weapons? Before the US intervenes there should be a clear objective. I'm leaning towards targeting the chemical weapons, creating a plan to contain the violence to Syria and otherwise keeping the US military out of it. I am not sure the US military could take the steps necessary to stop the violence in Syria without making the overall situation in the Middle East worse.
-
Syria is a quagmire and I question the precise goal of a military intervention. Is the US going to choose a side in this civil war? Neither side seems worthy of our support. Is the purpose to prove to other countries that we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons? Should the US military targets those, confirm they are destroyed and let the Syrians continue their conflict using conventional weapons? Before the US intervenes there should be a clear objective. I'm leaning towards targeting the chemical weapons, creating a plan to contain the violence to Syria and otherwise keeping the US military out of it. I am not sure the US military could take the steps necessary to stop the violence in Syria without making the overall situation in the Middle East worse.
The war in Iraq started as a hunt for chemical weapons and WMDs. I politely disagree with invading for this purpose (again).
-
I found it odd while listening to the news about this issue. The European Union supports the US invading the Syrian government. Really? Perhaps the US should simply report that we're OK with whatever THEY decide to do.
Obviously, I spent a great deal of time around veterans, most of whom have served in foreign wars. These types of situations are usually discussed at great length. The majority of those discussing the Syrian situation support a US strike. And NO, they don't always automatically support military strikes.
-
I'm totally at a loss on what to do.
There are zero good options.
I don't think the Admin wants to force regime change by taking out Assad...If we take out Assad and hand the country over to the Rebels then there will be more bloodshed with the rebels massacrering the Christians and the Alawites who are supporting the Assad regime. Will that be our fault then? Would we be forced to act on those attrocities since we brought it about?
The chemical attacks killed approx 1200 people they are saying. But prior to that 100,000 people have died while we stood by and watched. So by this, clearly we are not concerned about the humanitarian aspect of it.
It's all about the chem weapons.
But I'm hearing we cannot take out the chem weapons with tomahawk missiles without dispersing the agents and possibly killing more people.
So what are we targeting and why?
Assad has threatened to retaliate if the US attacks. Is this bluster or will they target Israel or other western interests? Will Assad allow Hezbollah to aquire some of the chem weapons to use against Israel?
I would hate to be in Obama's shoes right now and having to make these decisions.
Personally I think we have to do something, maybe limited strikes against some of the units responsible for using the chem weapons, and maybe some strikes against the command structures responsible for directing the chem weapons. Very limited though and not enough to decapitate the regime. And then afterward immediately pull the destroyers away from Syria.
And let the cards fall where they may.
But even this will not prevent the further slaughter of women and children.
So I'm back to being at a loss of what to do.
-
I so agree Willy, there are no good options available. Based on remarks from FB peeps, O'bama will be wrong regardless of his course of actions. Definitely a loose/loose situation.
-
Now that it's well known that 50% of North Koreans are meth addicts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/21/how-north-korea-got-itself-hooked-on-meth/) I say we bomb them instead. 8)
-
Watch and wait, send humanitarian aid, and pick up the pieces? Pursue crimes through world courts? Let powers in the region figure out what to do, if they have an interest and their own citizens and parliaments let them? Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
The "line" on chemical weapons was misguided and also misinterpreted. The USA Hawks and defence contractors would be perfectly happy to get the military directly involved in regime change and then happy some more to be discontent with the islamicist replacement. Hello, sound like Egypt? I guess punitive strikes are unavoidable but still they are regrettable.
I say stay out of it completely. Its a pity these countries have to go through these civil wars but what the fuck is the USA to do in 2013.
Spend money and effort rebuilding the USA. Walk and talk a high moral line in global affairs but does this have to include military might, participation in destruction, deaths, which would be senseless, leaving nothing better in its place?
Ideally, its up to people to figure out their own country's destiny, not the US government and military.
But these aren't ideal circumstances.
IMO it would be courageous for the US to be pacifist through and through. Though it wouldn't be pretty for the Syrians.
As a caveat, i guess if Bashar or his "rogue" brother is willing to gas his own people, I don't have a problem with other countries providing the "rebels" with arms. Except that we have been down that road. Different powers will will give each side arms and its a terrible, old, futile story.
-
I say leave this shit storm for the muslim countries to figure out themselves. For that matter, let the Arab League members carry out the "punitive strikes". Maybe if they use their toys, they have to buy some more...
-
Chemicals aren't all bad. I think a few drops of love potion in their water source could do wonders.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f145/Daleen/336.gif) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Daleen/media/336.gif.html)
-
The more I think about the situation and after reading that a large majority of Americans polled do not support intervention I think the US should withdraw and Obama should spin it that he is doing the will of the American people.
-
I think many Americans may feel that if we go in foreign counties and get rid of a bad guy that things will turn around and they will want democracy as much as we do , its not so on a wholesale level .
I saw a poll CNN after the Iraq war was over and the majority of the people who were stopped on the street and asked what form of government would they like to have and many many of them replied they wouldn't mind another dictator if he would do what he was supposed to do . Although it wasn't a scientific poll it shows the stark contrast to what our citizens would say if asked the same question .
-
A recent poll in Louisiana showed 28% thought Obama was responsible during Hurricane Katrina. I think a similar number answered correctly that it was Bush, and the remaining were "not sure". Now seriously, you want to run foreign relations according to polling? I'd tend to agree if the poll respondent had to first correctly identify Syria on a map, state the name of the largest city and a ballpark estimate of the country's population.
-
Homosexcicles were responsible for Katrina. Everyone knows it was God's wrath.
-
Now seriously, you want to run foreign relations according to polling?
Definitely not. Whatever action Obama takes, polling should be used to persuade voters he made the best decision, that he was responding to the will of the American people.
-
From what I'm reading now is that US intelligence intercepted a call from the Syrian Defense chief demanding an explanation from its chemical weapons unit after the attack, and whatever communication was exchanged between these entities it's clear which side used the weapons. It's also probably why even the French are on board with whatever is about to happen.
-
From what I'm reading now is that US intelligence intercepted a call from the Syrian Defense chief demanding an explanation from its chemical weapons unit after the attack, and whatever communication was exchanged between these entities it's clear which side used the weapons. It's also probably why even the French are on board with whatever is about to happen.
The Guardian is reporting it was Israeli intelligence that intercepted the communications, and the Israelis told the Americans. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/august-2013-cable-news-ratings_n_3830890.html?ref=topbar
Looks like most of America watches only Fox News. So what does Fox News want?
Fox News and plus the Republican House.
Is there any public opinion polling thats not about invading, not about troups, just about the "narrowly defined" punitive bombing with missiles? Why do i guess that most American stakeholders would be AOK with that.
-
I think we should stay the hell out of it! It's not our fight. We have too many problems here we need to focus on. I think we should only go to war if it's a direct attack on us or directly in our national interest. The Middle East is nothing but trouble, we can't be the world policeman. There's too many unknowns, all of which are pretty bad. Assad may be a bad dictator, but there's a ton of dictators in the world. So what. And better him than some radical Islamist state like Iran. Let them fight it out. The Assads have ruled Syria for decades & kept it in line until the recent war started. At least he is the devil we know. The rebels may be worse.
We've seen what's happened when we jumped into wars too quickly, they don't go very well. Anyone remember Iraq? You have to have a clear strategic objective. If we get involved Assad may well lash out even more and has tons of chemical weapons he could hit Israel with or gas his own people more. Again it's not our fight and it's not an immediate threat to us so we should stay out.
Assad using chemical weapons is really reprehensible, but we can't do much about it unless we're willing to go to war with him over it. In the 1980s the Iraqis used chemical weapons lots of times against Iran & the Kurds, & nothing was done, because it wasn't any of our business.
I'm glad Obama is being cautious. He should take a step back and see that we have enough problems & the Middle East is a minefield & we best stay the hell out of it! Not worth the risk or money!
-
Did anyone see the debate in the British Parliament?
A. Now that's what I call a debate.
B. They voted no, they will not be along side the US in any attack.
If the US goes, they go alone.
-
Did anyone see the debate in the British Parliament?
A. Now that's what I call a debate.
B. They voted no, they will not be along side the US in any attack.
If the US goes, they go alone.
Its not over by far . The no votes in parliament was very close and not a done deal .
I watched our president admit on tv that any air strikes we do will have little effect on the civil war and described it as a punishment and a shot across the bow of the Syrian regime . If that's the case then military action on the presidents part is mostly a political decision .
That war is being fought by two combatants that are not our friend no matter how the war ends , so I'm hoping we send humanitarian aid instead of missiles .
-
The drum beats of war have faded a tad in the last 48 hours. I wonder if this is an out the president needs, or will he have to stand by his "red line" comment.
Ps- I saw the Israeli govt handing out gas masks to all its citizens yesterday. What a way to have to live
-
Anyone just catch Kerry's speech. Start beating those war drums people, clearly we will begin bombing soon (now that Assad has had a chance to move women and children into our targets ::))
He made some cogent arguments, and put forth good evidence. Although I always wonder about our sources now.
Kerry- "Allowing a dictator to use Chemical weapons with impunity sets a precedent".
hmmm.
-
426 children killed by chemical weapons, and yet some folks fixate on abortion.
-
Did anyone see the debate in the British Parliament?
A. Now that's what I call a debate.
B. They voted no, they will not be along side the US in any attack.
If the US goes, they go alone.
That's kinda correct. They voted to not immediately offer support until/if evidence is shown.
Quoted from the NYT; "But Mr. Obama’s efforts to marshal a unified international front for a short, punitive strike raised concerns about the evidence, reawakening British resentment over false assurances from the American and British governments that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
-
I think it's magnificent that America's new coalition partner is arriving in the form of a French socialist. Methinks it's time for a new "special relationship" based on escargot.
So what will the "freedom fries" of 2013 take the form of in terms of an anti-British food item?
-
I think it's magnificent that America's new coalition partner is arriving in the form of a French socialist. Methinks it's time for a new "special relationship" based on escargot.
So what will the "freedom fries" of 2013 take the form of in terms of an anti-British food item?
I'm curious where you stand on this issue, afterall I need to know what my buddy thinks. Would you bomb or not?
-
But the American public isn't behind the "punitive bombing" and isn't behind the idea of another war, either. So who's going to get angry at the British? Press coverage and buzz is more like envious, of their common sense.
-
This thread is NEW AND IMPROVED with a just added poll!!
Be sure to record your choice!
-
Bashar Assad's 11 year old son, taunts the US via Facebook. So cute ::)
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/facebook-post-said-to-be-by-assads-son-dares-americans-to-attack/?_r=1&
-
If we were going to act with missile strikes, we should have done so with speed AND SILENCE. Now, they have had time to move things from obvious targets and, as someone else pointed out, moved civilians into these areas.
Military action, of this sort, should really not have a "marketing campaign" -- do it and then talk, or don't do it at all. Now, if we were to be considering an invasion -- perhaps a QUICK "campaign" to get Congress bought in and hopefully willing to do their duty and declare war. (No, I am NOT advocating either action -- just pointing out the ridiculousness of putting any type of military action to a "public referendum". The other side reads papers too!!
Hence, I shall vote "no" to this little poll, because the window of opportunity has now passed.
M
-
The Communist Mr. Hollande and the USA- the land of unfiltrated capitalism- I'm curious what this new coalition will produce in the future. And the UK not the compliant partner of the Big Brother. This will get interesting:)
I think that France has realized a great opportunity to get the third Superpower. As I know them, they always wanted it. :)
-
How can you do a stealthy response if the proper procedure is to have Congress debate it. I don't think there is much precedent for "punitive" strikes - its just another kind of war act. The executive branch will come up with the legal parameters. I agree a stealthy quick strike would have had many advantages. But was it possible? And what would have been the political fallout to that.
Now it sounds like more lose lose, I agree. I doubt there is going to be much of a debate, if the strikes are coming on Sunday night. So they blabbed, and didn't get the congressional stamp of approval that should have come with blabbing... :(
-
How can you do a stealthy response if the proper procedure is to have Congress debate it. I don't think there is much precedent for "punitive" strikes - its just another kind of war act. The executive branch will come up with the legal parameters. I agree a stealthy quick strike would have had many advantages. But was it possible? And what would have been the political fallout to that.
Now it sounds like more lose lose, I agree. I doubt there is going to be much of a debate, if the strikes are coming on Sunday night. So they blabbed, and didn't get the congressional stamp of approval that should have come with blabbing... :(
Well, the Congress hasn't declared war in decades and decades, so I'm not seeing that anyone really feels that it would be required for some surgical air strikes (well, the out of power party perhaps does....). However, there has been little debate in declarations that have happened in the past. Take WWII -- Pearl Harbor attacked on 12/7, war declared on 12/8. Different circumstances, true -- but there was a time when Congress could act swiftly.
I think there would have been little real political fallout from a swift strike, so long as the targets were chosen well. Now there are no targets that could be "well chosen". In matters military, more than just about any other, it's important to remember that the US is NOT a Democracy -- but a Republic. We elect our leaders to lead -- if they do things we don't like, we "unelect" them the next time around.
I find it interesting that folks insist on gauging public opinion only when something has happened or is about to happen that they don't agree with. I mean, I'm not hearing anyone on here demand that the public weigh in as to whether same-sex couples should be able to file joint tax returns if they live in a state that bans same sex marriage?? Although if I watched Fox News, I might here a call for it.......
Mike
-
Did anyone see the debate in the British Parliament?
A. Now that's what I call a debate.
B. They voted no, they will not be along side the US in any attack.
If the US goes, they go alone.
We all know that can change in a heart beat, it happened in WWll, remember what Roosevelt said in 1940.
"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars"
Yet one year later he sent their boys into war.
Aroha
Jan
-
Again, it's simply none of our business point blank. It sounds like it's a done deal we are going to yet another war in the middle east. We can't be the world's policeman. Lots of bad things happen, but if it doesn't directly affect us, we should stay out. We're broke, & have a ton of problems here that need fixing thanks to the wasted billions we spend in Iraq. Again we should only go to war if it affects us directly. Assad is a horrible dictator but he didn't attack us. So how is it our business? It's terrible that he gassed his own people but how do we know what we're getting into? What is he decides to attack Israel with chemical weapons? I am not anti-war, but this is not our fight. Syria didn't attack us. We shouldn't spend money on another war that we have no stake in.
-
LMAO
“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot? Let Allah sort it out” - Sarah Palin
-
LMAO
“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot? Let Allah sort it out” - Sarah Palin
Isn't it scary that she could have been in power, and a heart beat away? I mean, that is scary to think. Millions voted for them. If not for the Bush backlash and if the "secret Muslim" attacks worked better, she and McCain could be sitting in the Situation Room. That is really disturbing.
http://youtu.be/PsvlkWykDBQ
Modified
Do you think she masturbates to the video she forces them to show? Is that why her hair is all messed up? Then, after the Sarah porn, she has the nerve to say the cause isn't about her.
-
the reason we maintain a strong Military is and always has been to " Protect the citizens of the USA" I see no real evidence that bombing or any other interference in Syria will do that...no matter the polls, grandstanding or opinions put forth from whatever source... Obama put his foot firmly in his mouth about "drawing lines" that is a political problem he has to solve.. all the Red Herrings about "moral" stands is pure BS there are so many things in this world that require "moral stands" no government or combination of them can deal with them by using a few bombs and well spun press releases
to those that seem to require some action let the locals deal with it..neighbors like Israel,Jordan,and the other Arab League ,states that have personal and practical issues with Syria's actions...they all have access to modern weapons and Armies if that is their choice of solutions
Nick
-
Yeah I agree, as I said above let the region step up to the plate, or not, as they want. Arab League hello?
-
If memory serves me correctly, a decade after the US Constitution was ratified two different founding fathers launched foreign wars to protect business interests. 8)
-
Yeah I agree, as I said above let the region step up to the plate, or not, as they want. Arab League hello?
I'm thinking that's not going to happen. I also agree that the US shouldn't be the "world police".
People are getting killed by a dictator. I don't know what the solution is at this point.
-
Just wait until we have to do something about this (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-most-dangerous-city-in-the-world-is-not-where-you-think-it-is/278963/).
-
I'm with Kerry and Obama on this (I cant believe I just typed that) ...we cannot let this stand.
-
I can't wait to watch Grumpy McCain and NancyBoy Graham call Senators Cruz and Paul something worse than "wacko birds" in two weeks.
-
We just need to stay the hell out of the Middle East it's nothing but trouble. Obama put his foot in it and basically committed us to military action after he drew the red line. It's bad what Assad did but I don't see what we can do about it unless we're prepared to go to war. There are no good options. Stay out & the carnage continues, get involved & risk a wider war.
-
We just need to stay the hell out of the Middle East it's nothing but trouble. Obama put his foot in it and basically committed us to military action after he drew the red line. It's bad what Assad did but I don't see what we can do about it unless we're prepared to go to war. There are no good options. Stay out & the carnage continues, get involved & risk a wider war.
While I am not advocating our involvement here, your reasoning makes me wonder what would have happened had the French said that when the American rebels were agitating their dictator??
My reasoning for us staying out of any war in Syria is that there are no real goals, aside from ridding Syria of Assad. There is no ONE rebel group, so what would be the ultimate goal? Certainly not creating a vacuum.
M
-
I just find it interesting how our government and citizens react to the chemical weapons issue. We gave them to Iraq, to use against Iran, including anthrax and the bubonic plague. When Saddam used them against the Kurds, we turned a blind eye. We were supplying Saddam with weapons, training, and intelligence. Because he was of use to us then, we weren't concerned much with the use of awful chemical and biological weapons. We gave Saddam the positions of Iranian troops, knowing that he planned to use chemical weapons. And, many consider Reagan one of the best presidents.
Has the government ever apologized for that, and adopted a real policy that we would never give these weapons to anyone ever again? It just seems like we pick and choose what we find repugnant. We don't have much moral authority. We have stockpiles, with many stored here in Kentucky. Why don't we destroy them, to show they have no legitimate use?
I remember reading we may have used chemical weapons in Iraq. Here are a couple articles, that allege the U.S. used depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and napalm.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq
-
How's this for a bit of perspective?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/02/a-short-history-of-bio-chemical-weapons/
-
Hmm sounds like the hawks want the same old same old - regime change, WAR. Plus they get to crow, rightly so, about Obama's ham-handed handling...
Who enjoys hawks crowing...
Sounds like the dems will mumble about a too broad mandate, look down and away.
Oh the French language reports were merciless about the parallels between Kerry and Colin Powell and the ill-defined or maybe fraudulent justification of all this... Maybe the frog government is on board but the press and people sure aren't.
-
We should be well aware of what we're getting into. Bashar Assad is no looney like Ghaddafi. Assad is a ruthless, intelligent, calculating, man who's spent 13 years building a police state capable of withstanding any internal or external threat. If we attack & don't go all the way, like in the Gulf War in 1991, Assad will be weakened but left in power & will claim victory over the US & continue acting out. If however we do go in there's a very real risk that he'll lash out & gas more of his people or worse attack Israel or Saudi Arabia. If we attack, which seems likely, he'll probably lash out. Syria has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East. Supposedly they also have quite a few scud missiles they've gotten from the Russians.
I'm for doing something to stand against Assad's genocide, but the question is what. There just aren't any good options & I'm reluctant for another war in the Middle East. His use of chemical weapons was terrible, but I'm not clear on what our stake in this is.
-
That bloodthirsty Boxer and Pelosi want to commence bombing NOW. Thank God we have Boehner and Rubio calming them down ::)
-
That bloodthirsty Boxer and Pelosi want to commence bombing NOW. Thank God we have Boehner and Rubio calming them down ::)
Boehner's a drunk (like you) and was passed out -- likely from cheap house tequila and high-fructose Walmart margarita mix. His #2, Cantor of the Old Dominion, says that this is a "secular proxy war" with Iran and wants Barry Soetoro to do his job and take out the mullahs at the end. So, in that context, Babs and Nan are actually staking out the more liberal position.
-
Boehner's a drunk (like you) and was passed out -- likely from cheap house tequila and high-fructose Walmart margarita mix. His #2, Cantor of the Old Dominion, says that this is a "secular proxy war" with Iran and wants Barry Soetoro to do his job and take out the mullahs at the end. So, in that context, Babs and Nan are actually staking out the more liberal position.
Fascinating political insight from a klonnie head.
-
Fascinating political insight from a klonnie head.
Yeah, I bet you find it fascinating (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYEaoWDWhRs).
-
Yeah, I bet you find it fascinating (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYEaoWDWhRs).
I hope this doesn't reopen the whole birth certificate issue again.... ;)
-
I hope this doesn't reopen the whole birth certificate issue again.... ;)
SOCIALIZED SPACE TRAVEL!!!
-
Just wait until one of them wakes up, looks in the mirror and says "Today is a Say Something Hat Day" ::) then decides to wade into a civil war because a "red line has been crossed"........how come that wasnt said when China moved their warships into the Sea of Japan last year?
There are currently no overweight Sopranos waiting to come on stage and start singing.....and its unlikely any will be booked for next years Superbowl either!
-
I don't know how I can focus on chemical weapons and military action, when there is this scandal. This needs a special prosecutor and impeachment hearings. This is what many on the right find so appalling, today. I've seen it on both national and local news, as well as social media. These silly things always come from the right. "Oh, dear! Obama didn't wear a jacket in the Oval Office, when Bush always did. Bush respected the office." Btw, there are photos of Bush not wearing a jacket and I believe his feet on the desk.
I post this here, because I don't see how something as serious as military action can be debated between the parties, when silly things like this make news. The nuts and Faux News start the story, and then mainstream media picks it up. News outlets post it on facebook, asking whether you think it is disrespectful to the office. How dare a black Kenyan (lol) put his feet on the white man's desk. I don't care if he jerks off on the desk, just as long the decisions made at that desk are well thought out and done for the right reasons.
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/photo_zps973beb4e.jpg)
http://www.teaparty.org/does-seeing-president-obamas-foot-on-the-oval-office-desk-make-your-blood-boil-28018/
-
Nixon sullied the Oval Office years ago, with his lies, crimes and vulgarity. Clinton did his bit to keep it dirty.
-
I see nothing wrong with the picture. Obama is talking on the phone & deliberating the issues of the day. He's the Chief Executive & like any other ceo the office gets stuffy every now & then. He still looks nice, has a nice shirt & tie on. No issue in my opinion. Actually to be accurate he is bi-racial. Maybe that bothers the right wingers even more. But like meech said, if you want to talk about truly tainting the Oval Office, Nixon sat there & spewed out tons of bigoted hate speech & Clinton let that fat intern Monica blow him off. So yea I see nothing wrong if Obama simply talks on the phone without a suit jacket. Maybe Fox News was having a light news day.
-
Please people, FDR started the shenanigans by doing Coke lines off the Oval Office desk. (http://fdrsdeadlysecret.blogspot.com/2011/11/pearl-harbor-by-steven-mgillon-fdr-and.html) He was jacked up to Jesus when he declared war on Japan. ::)
Who cares what happens in the White house... I'm sure GW porked Laura in the bunghole on that desk. Who wouldnt want to do that?
...now can we get back to the business of attacking other countries please!
-
I'm sure GW porked Laura in the bunghole on that desk. Who wouldnt want to do that?
Laura Welch runs over people with cars if they refuse sex. Then again she smokes menthol and is a closet abortionist like her daughters.
-
I'm sure GW porked Laura in the bunghole on that desk. Who wouldnt want to do that?
I don't want any of Laura's holes even if they were offerred up in the Presidential Suite of the Hotel Wilson in Geneva, with black attachés of unmarked cash.
speaking of First Ladies
I read somewhere that Vogue took down its profile of Mrs. al-Assad. So I googled her.
Charming:
lymail.co.uk/news/article-2408054/As-Syria-implodes-Mrs-Assad-splashes-chandeliers-Western-food-fitness-fads-Bizarre-shopping-spree-British-beauty-holed-bunker-vile-dictator.html
As Syria implodes, Mrs Assad splashes out on chandeliers, Western food and fitness fads: Bizarre shopping spree of the British beauty holed up in bunker with vile dictator
Asma Assad, 38, orders Western food so her children don't eat Syrian cuisine all the time
Studied at King's College London and worked as a banker at JP Morgan before meeting her husband
Extreme spending came to light last year when she ordered £270,000 chandeliers
Former adviser to the Assads claims Asma is superficial and has 'no heart'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397440/Asma-al-Assads-Instagram-charm-offensive-backfires-users-turn-Syrian-lady.html
Instagram users turn on Syrian first lady Asma al Assad after she attempts internet charm-offensive
Pictures show British-born Asma al-Assad doing charity work
Instagram outrage where commentators brand her a 'hypocrite'
-
I don't know how I can focus on chemical weapons and military action, when there is this scandal. This needs a special prosecutor and impeachment hearings. This is what many on the right find so appalling, today. I've seen it on both national and local news, as well as social media. These silly things always come from the right. "Oh, dear! Obama didn't wear a jacket in the Oval Office, when Bush always did. Bush respected the office." Btw, there are photos of Bush not wearing a jacket and I believe his feet on the desk.
I post this here, because I don't see how something as serious as military action can be debated between the parties, when silly things like this make news. The nuts and Faux News start the story, and then mainstream media picks it up. News outlets post it on facebook, asking whether you think it is disrespectful to the office. How dare a black Kenyan (lol) put his feet on the white man's desk. I don't care if he jerks off on the desk, just as long the decisions made at that desk are well thought out and done for the right reasons.
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv22/tedunk/photo_zps973beb4e.jpg)
http://www.teaparty.org/does-seeing-president-obamas-foot-on-the-oval-office-desk-make-your-blood-boil-28018/
And the media (mainstream or otherwise) shall continue to do so, so long as eyes keep looking at it. They rely on folks passing it on and posting it elsewhere (hint, hint) to keep the story moving.
M
-
Laughing at the dumbbell tpartiers scandalized by such posts is not "part of the problem".
-
Yeah Ted , be sure not to repost that pic Mike warned you about posting , you know the pic , its the one Mike just warned you not to post by posting it himself .
I couldn't resist .
-
Yeah Ted , be sure not to repost that pic Mike warned you about posting , you know the pic , its the one Mike just warned you not to post by posting it himself .
lol. I was thinking the same thing ;D
-
Yeah Ted , be sure not to repost that pic Mike warned you about posting , you know the pic , its the one Mike just warned you not to post by posting it himself .
I couldn't resist .
Tell me where I told Ted not to post it??? I dare you.... :P
Plus -- I didn't "post" it, I simply quoted it, so there!!!! Besides -- a picture is worth a thousand words, right??? Hmmmm, How many other politician like "ducks" can I come up with?? ?? ??
I guess it all comes down to what you definition of "post" is??
Hugs to all (except the faux news posters, of course ;) )
M
-
Syria didn't attack us. I feel bad for the citizens there but it's not our business. Assad is horrible, but he didn't use chemical weapons against us. Too many unknowns if we get involved. And all of them bad. Why should we spend blood & treasure in this? We should have stayed out of Iraq & we should not get into another war in the Middle East but it's going to happen & nothing's going to stop it at this point.
-
Tell me where I told Ted not to post it??? I dare you.... :P
Plus -- I didn't "post" it, I simply quoted it, so there!!!! Besides -- a picture is worth a thousand words, right??? Hmmmm, How many other politician like "ducks" can I come up with?? ?? ??
I guess it all comes down to what you definition of "post" is??
Hugs to all (except the faux news posters, of course ;) )
M
I edited personal information out of someone's post the other day not realizing I quoted the personal information when smugly admonishing them for posting it , of course a well meaning forum member reported me to the moderator and pointed it out .
-
we should not get into another war in the Middle East but it's going to happen & nothing's going to stop it at this point.
But Obama said this isnt going to be a war.
-
I edited personal information out of someone's post the other day not realizing I quoted the personal information when smugly admonishing them for posting it , of course a well meaning forum member reported me to the moderator and pointed it out .
ROFL
-
Syria didn't attack us. I feel bad for the citizens there but it's not our business. Assad is horrible, but he didn't use chemical weapons against us. Too many unknowns if we get involved. And all of them bad. Why should we spend blood & treasure in this? We should have stayed out of Iraq & we should not get into another war in the Middle East but it's going to happen & nothing's going to stop it at this point.
Since it's none of our business and we should stay out of it, I'm just curious if you feel the same way with other issues such as AIDS funding and famine relief to poor nations? ;) Why save "those" people if they're not willing to help themselves!!!!
Wolfie
-
Liz Cheney Sees Herself in Winston Churchill (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/liz-cheney-just-winston-churchill/69043/)
-
Jon Stewart was back last night, and I see things how he does. He mentions what I posted in an earlier post. We assisted Saddam in using chemical and biological weapons against Iran. We looked the other way, when he used them on the Kurds. We still have huge stockpiles. We still have Napalm bombs, with reports we may have used them in Iraq, along with depleted uranium.
Over 100,000 Syrians were already killed by conventional methods. What makes this the time to get involved? And, I have also thought how so many talk about us looking weak. We will do this to not look weak? Even if it makes no sense and may just cause more problems, we must do this to not look weak, because Iran and others are watching to see what we do?
Oh, I especially enjoy how Rummy discusses how awful it is to use chemical weapons, when he was the point man for assisting Saddam in doing the same.
http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=uncle-jonny-stew-s-good-time-syria-jamboree
-
Jon Stewart was back last night, and I see things how he does. He mentions what I posted in an earlier post. We assisted Saddam in using chemical and biological weapons against Iran. We looked the other way, when he used them on the Kurds. We still have huge stockpiles. We still have Napalm bombs, with reports we may have used them in Iraq, along with depleted uranium.
Over 100,000 Syrians were already killed by conventional methods. What makes this the time to get involved? And, I have also thought how so many talk about us looking weak. We will do this to not look weak? Even if it makes no sense and may just cause more problems, we must do this to not look weak, because Iran and others are watching to see what we do?
Oh, I especially enjoy how Rummy discusses how awful it is to use chemical weapons, when he was the point man for assisting Saddam in doing the same.
http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=uncle-jonny-stew-s-good-time-syria-jamboree
Pelosi and the posse disagree with you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobfkm02gww)
-
US Senate Committee votes to bomb Assad.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/syria-resolution-vote_n_3867690.html
-
Pelosi and the posse disagree with you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobfkm02gww)
Well, she has been a little odd. She left the West Wing and talked to reporters about a discussion with her 5 year-old granddaughter, regarding whether to strike Syria.
-
I'd just like to add that the Secretary of State today was saying the objective is to degrade Assad's capabilities. To change the equation so to speak. But as others pointed out, there is not one rebel group. In my opinion the U.S. has got to stop with the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It can be argued that that is how Saddam Hussein came to power as well as how Osama bin Laden and Al Queda grew in the first place.
Furthermore, yes, it is awful what is happening there -- whether killing by "conventional" means or using chemical weapons on civilians. My guess is that a large body of the Syrian population have their political views but would rather just not have this multi-sided civil war and death all around them. I am not at all confident that even without "boots on the ground" U.S. strikes on Syria are not going to kill MORE innocent people.
And on a final note I'm not (nor am I ever) confident that the decision makers in the executive branch or the legislative branch understand enough of the nuance for this attempt at a "surgical strike" to not just make things worse.
-
Why are we the world police?
Would Syria help us if our governement was killing us? Would any of the other countries help us like we help them?
Does Syria even want our help?
If not then we should stay out or do like my brother suggested and turn the country into a parking lot.
I should watch more news and less Duck Dynasty.
Michelle 8)
-
If not then we should stay out or do like my brother suggested and turn the country into a parking lot.
Do nothing. Or annihilation. Pretty bleak binary, there. :(
Yugoslavia. Libya. Our involvement wasn't exactly full out war. Or maybe if some disagrees, and says these were wars, well at least they weren't very long. There were operation related air crashes in Yugoslavia but officially no NATO combat casualties.
-
If Assad was overthrown, are these the folks to take over? These people are no better, really. This just reminds me of arming and training Bin Laden and the Taliaban. Or, giving support to Saddam to fight Iran. If the strikes caused Assad to fall, wouldn't we just end up with a regime just as bad?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-
I actually dont know what the f*ck we are doing now. I'm starting to sense incompetence and mission creep.
Would it be too damn much for 'Bama to go primetime tv for a few minutes and explain to us exactly what he wants and intends to do?
-
Would it be too damn much for 'Bama to go primetime tv for a few minutes and explain to us exactly what he wants and intends to do?
He's already scheduled to do that on Tuesday I think. PLEASE KEEP UP.
-
He's already scheduled to do that on Tuesday I think. PLEASE KEEP UP.
Oh lovely! then only 3 more days of WH staff contradicting each other and rampant shoulder shrugging and eyes glazing over.
-
Oh lovely! then only 3 more days of WH staff contradicting each other and rampant shoulder shrugging and eyes glazing over.
So you openly admit that your grasp of the facts is lacking? Fascinating.
-
Im not supporting this war but there are a few things I have noticed about our president .
He is crazy like a fox and has always been several steps ahead of any thing his detractors or people who wish to stand in his way . He stands back with cool calm dignity while others muddy themselves and shows their hand . I think his instincts have served him well so far in every tough fight he has found himself in .
I am a pacifist at heart and have trouble comprehending war as a solution to a problem and off hand I would say World War 2 was the exception in my mind .
-
So you openly admit that your grasp of the facts is lacking? Fascinating.
Since you bring it up, what exactly are the facts?
-
Since you bring it up, what exactly are the facts?
That a speech will be given on Tuesday, which you criticized as being non-existent, because obviously your brain has been marinating in tequila all week.
-
I am a pacifist at heart and have trouble comprehending war as a solution to a problem and off hand I would say World War 2 was the exception in my mind .
I was supporting bama and Kerry, but now that all this time has evolved and Assad has hidden his weapons ad command, etc... Im wondering if it still is prudent to strike.
But at what point do we strike? What if he uses chemical weapons again and a third time etc and kills 5000 and more?
and then theoretically do we strike if he uses small yield Nukes?
Is ther another line? or no lines at all now?
-
Wow. Now Assad has gone NEW-klee-AHR? That's how you say it in Texas amirite?
-
Wow. Now Assad has gone NEW-klee-AHR? That's how you say it in Texas amirite?
Do you have any grasp of what "theoretically" means? If not please google
Also, since you are in a commenting mood, where is your line on this issue?
-
I was supporting bama and Kerry, but now that all this time has evolved and Assad has hidden his weapons ad command, etc... Im wondering if it still is prudent to strike.
But at what point do we strike? What if he uses chemical weapons again and a third time etc and kills 5000 and more?
and then theoretically do we strike if he uses small yield Nukes?
Is ther another line? or no lines at all now?
I really don't know the answers to these questions but my feelings are all deeply uneasy about our country attacking sovereign nations when they haven't directly threatened us .
-
Wow. Now Assad has gone NEW-klee-AHR? That's how you say it in Texas amirite?
According to former president Dubya: New-kew-ler
-
Has anyone been catching the video's of the kids foaming at the mouth and gasping for air as they die that CNN has been playing over and over all afternoon.
It's working. I'm heartbroken, and so conflicted.
Regardless of our position, it's something that we all should see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btWBrVVJZck
-
Hi Will
I'm not sure how to share this video, but I put it up on my FB page if you want to have a look, you can find it if you search "Father reunited with his son in Syria", this is going on every hour of every bloody day to innocent people. It breaks my heart, I don't know what the answer is, I just know it has to stop.
Aroha
Jan :'(
-
Hi Will
I'm not sure how to share this video, but I put it up on my FB page if you want to have a look, you can find it if you search "Father reunited with his son in Syria", this is going on every hour of every bloody day to innocent people. It breaks my heart, I don't know what the answer is, I just know it has to stop.
Aroha
Jan :'(
Jan I saw that on your page. I cried. It was exceptionally moving.
-
Poot- Poot saves the day!
(http://i1018.photobucket.com/albums/af308/IwuvPhilly/putin_zpsf6cdc355.jpg)
Russia's Putin has come forth with a proposal to put all of Syria's Chemical weapons under international control. Syria has said they would agree to this.
This could be the best outcome for everyone involved.
This could be the lifeboat the Obama needs to get him out of this mess and he is thought to be seriously reviewing offer.
Of course this wont stop the slaughter, but no one really cares about that ::)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/obama-putin-syria-chemical-weapons_n_3896333.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
-
Lord help us if the administration is going to be dumb enough to buy anything the Russians have to say. They're just wanting to save their client state which is Assad. Obama is going to look seriously weak if he backs down now because people will say he's scared of the Russians. It just looks bad. I don't think we have any business involved in Syria, but if you set a red line, you got to back it up & you can't have it both ways. Looks really weak & bumbling. If you want to stay out, then stay out, but don't set red lines & then not follow through. We need to stay OUT of the Middle East those people basically all hate us. But you have to pick a policy & go with it & not keep waffling back & forth, either be against intervention or for it. I don't like people with no convictions. Just my opinion. I wouldn't have set a "red line" to begin with.
-
Lord help us if the administration is going to be dumb enough to buy anything the Russians have to say. They're just wanting to save their client state which is Assad. Obama is going to look seriously weak if he backs down now because people will say he's scared of the Russians. It just looks bad. I don't think we have any business involved in Syria, but if you set a red line, you got to back it up & you can't have it both ways. Looks really weak & bumbling. If you want to stay out, then stay out, but don't set red lines & then not follow through. We need to stay OUT of the Middle East those people basically all hate us. But you have to pick a policy & go with it & not keep waffling back & forth, either be against intervention or for it. I don't like people with no convictions. Just my opinion. I wouldn't have set a "red line" to begin with.
So what is your position?? after repeatedly screaming to stay out, now you think we "have to" do something??
M
-
First of all I didn't "scream" anything. I stated that we should stay out of the Syrian war because it is not in our vital interest to get involved. I still think we should stay out my view has not changed. I also think the administration shouldn't have set a red line if they did not intend to back it up or follow through. They don't have to do anything but it looks bad if they back down now after saying a red line was crossed. It's Syria's fight, let them fight it out. Syria didn't attack us. I just feel the administration should have been a lot more tactful in their language. Hopefully a solution can be found without us losing face or losing lives.
-
FINALLY we will hear from BamBam tonight, maybe we will get an idea of what we are going to do.
-
Rachel Maddow wet her panties in excitement over the Russian proposal.
Seeing some pundits calling this a win by "master chessplayer" Obama.
-
America, the President needs your help! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ)
-
Dayuuummm Dayuummm Dayuummm
I knew I shouldn't have shifted my investments to bombs last week - I'm really gonna take a loss.... ummphhh...
-
Dayuuummm Dayuummm Dayuummm
I knew I shouldn't have shifted my investments to bombs last week - I'm really gonna take a loss.... ummphhh...
:( and I missed the call on the Hybrid Prius tanks
-
:( and I missed the call on the Hybrid Prius tanks
I'm thinking there still might be money to be made in off-shore chemical weapons storage facilities. Something like Pack-Rat or Public Storage but w/ a bio-hazard symbol... Maybe I should go on Shark Tank and see if I can get them to bite.
-
I'm thinking there still might be money to be made in off-shore chemical weapons storage facilities.
hmm, the Russians may have that market cornered. dunno.
-
Things seem to be turning out quite sensible. Assad must turn over the chemical weapons or face a military strike. I support military action. Diplomacy (at least until now that Assad is faced with military action) seems to be going nowhere. With 2 million refugees and 100,000 dead, I doubt we could do nothing for too much longer.
Every option has risks but I'd rather we do something than repeat another Rwanda, Sudan, etc...
Shame the UK Parliament voted through fears of Iraq. This isn't Iraq.
-
I have to say out of all the voices on TV discussing this, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are making the most sense, to me. Last night, Bill signed off with his thoughts on Syria. Among those, he said, "We have schools crumbling, but we always want to teach others a lesson." He lists all the countries we've bombed, since "Jebus gave us air superiority."
Well, you can watch it yourself, if ya want. I think he makes many good points. Having said that, if Syria and Russia are for real and not playing games, then it would seem the threat of force was necessary. Perhaps it could have been done with better diplomacy. Oh, not sure if it is in this clip, but Bill questions why we even have a United Nations, saying the building in NYC should just be turned into a disco. He said it is this kind of situation that they need to be leading on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/bill-maher-syria-george-zimmerman_n_3926679.html
-
I say, use the russians and whomever to secure the stockpiles of chemical weapons. In fact, get them the fuck out of the country. Make nicey nicer calm and reasonable, all the while, until every speck of them is gone...
Then, still bomb Assad's military installations... And put him on trial for war crimes.
-
Ted, I cringe when pundits say we need to sort out our problems at home. That's not really an excuse as we all know problems at home will never be fully sorted.
If the world needs a policeman (a big if), then on balance I think it's in the US interests that the policeman is the US and not China or Russia. I doubt we'd like a world where Russian or Chinese interests and values take precedence over our own. The cost of that means we need to involve ourselves in some fairly tricky (unpopular) situations....but hopefully do some good work along the way.
I don't like living in a world where millions are forced to flee their homes (exporting uncertainty to other nations), civilians are gassed, 100s of thousands die by conventional weapons and our initial reaction is to say it's not our problem.
-
I don't like living in a world where millions are forced to flee their homes (exporting uncertainty to other nations), civilians are gassed, 100s of thousands die by conventional weapons and our initial reaction is to say it's not our problem.
+1