Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on May 04, 2013, 01:16:13 AM
-
Some dang good points...
Why Syria may be Obama's gravest foreign policy blunder ever
By Damon Linker | The Week – Fri, May 3, 2013
America should not intervene in Syria. But a pair of presidential screw-ups may force us to.
War drums are beating once again in Washington.
The Syrian civil war has left 70,000 dead over the last two years. Roughly 1.3 million people have been driven from their homes, with some living in caves to escape the shelling. The stories are horrifying. No one with a conscience can fail to be moved by the suffering of the Syrian people or outraged by the actions of Bashar al-Assad's dictatorial regime in Damascus. But that doesn't mean that calls for the U.S. to intervene militarily make sense. On the contrary, such suggestions are profoundly foolish.
The case for intervention has been weak from the beginning, and it's been getting steadily weaker. Yes, the rebels oppose the execrable Assad regime, but many of them also appear to be jihadists. Would a post-Assad Syria be more free or less free than it is now? More democratic or less democratic? Better for women or worse for women? No one knows. Recent press reports indicating that at least some of the rebels are allied with al Qaeda certainly don't inspire high hopes. (Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is an even worse enemy.) Then there's the fact that Russia and China continue to oppose any action to topple the Syrian dictator, and flagrantly antagonizing them could make U.S. policymaking much more complicated in other parts of the globe.
Why, then, are the interventionists gaining traction now? Because last August President Obama warned the Syrian dictator that he considered the use of chemical weapons in the conflict a "red line" — and it now appears that Assad has crossed it.
On this the interventionists are right: When the president makes a threat, he has to follow through on it — otherwise, our ability to deter Iran, North Korea, and China (in the Taiwan Strait) will be severely undermined. Which means that Obama may be about to get us mixed up in yet another war in the Middle East.
This may be his gravest foreign policy blunder to date.
The president's decision to lay down his red line on chemical weapons was based on two errors in judgment — one large, and one small.
The first error is hardly unique to Obama; in fact, it's made constantly in the nation's capital. When atrocities are committed, when innocents suffer, when cities are shelled, when citizens are turned into refugees and children into orphans, the instinctual response among Washington politicians, journalists, and policy wonks is to assume we need to "do something" to stop it. While the instinct is admirable, it is based on the unexamined assumption that the United States has the same moral duties as an individual human being. It does not.
If a strong and well-armed individual refuses to come to the aid of someone being assaulted, we judge that person harshly — because his obligations are clear: He should defend the victim, even at the risk of injury to himself. If he displays a willingness to sacrifice his own well being in the act of fulfilling his moral duty, we call him selflessly courageous; it he doesn't, we denounce him for cowardice and selfishness. That's how moral judgment works.
But it's not how statesmanship works. The primary duty of the nation's commander in chief — the duty that overrides all others — is to uphold the common good of the United States and protect the rights of individual American citizens. If that sounds selfish, that's because it is. And rightly so. The president's duty is to us. He can have no duty to the citizens of another nation. That's why the greatest acts of statesmanship will always be more self-interested than the highest acts of individual virtue.
In keeping the United States out of the Syrian conflict for the past two years, Obama has showed that he understands this. But in laying down his now-transgressed "red line" on chemical weapons, he showed that he doesn't understand it well enough. It's as if the president wants to have it both ways: to be a tough-minded realist who puts American interests first, but also to become an idealistic do-gooder (who, like all presidents, salves his conscience by ordering other people — the nation's soldiers — to sacrifice themselves) once a certain line has been crossed. And Assad has called Obama's bluff.
Did Obama at least draw his moral line in a sensible place? Unfortunately, we have reason to doubt that, too — and therein lies his second mistake. Chemical weapons are very bad, of course. But are they categorically worse than aerial bombardment of civilian targets using conventional weapons? Both, after all, produce piles of corpses and leave large numbers of victims maimed and disfigured. The end result in both cases is horrifying. Should one provoke a military response while the other does not? If Obama thinks so, he has yet to make the case.
cont... http://news.yahoo.com/why-syria-may-obamas-gravest-foreign-policy-blunder-061600285.html
-
I can guarantee.... If Americans were spilling blood on the streets of Syria right now, people in the USA would be IRATE.
We've lost a lot of lives in Iraq, afghanistan and all over the world in the past 5 years of Obama rule. We "keep the peace" in a lot of places already.
At some point, the USA needs to say "Okay, we are helping out in the 50 places. We cannot help out in 60 places" or whatever number.
And why hasn't the rest of the world stepped in?
-
I can guarantee.... If Americans were spilling blood on the streets of Syria right now, people in the USA would be IRATE.
We've lost a lot of lives in Iraq, afghanistan and all over the world in the past 5 years of Obama rule. We "keep the peace" in a lot of places already.
At some point, the USA needs to say "Okay, we are helping out in the 50 places. We cannot help out in 60 places" or whatever number.
And why hasn't the rest of the world stepped in?
You really believe America's foreign policy is about helping?
"And why hasn't the rest of the world stepped in?"
lol, because no one want's to meddle in people's business unless it serves them.
America is an empire than has mastered the art of double speak and propaganda.
I love how presidents keep getting up on the podium spouting off asinine shit like "we invaded Iraq to bring them liberty and freedom".
-
Israel has already intervened militarily by bombing various chemical weapons depots within Syria.
I almost laughed out loud when I heard the newscaster make the claim that "Israel was defending itself when it bombed a Syrian government chemical weapons facility inside Syria. ::) ::)
When reports start coming in about drones or other technology detecting traces of chemical weapons in the air, you have to ask yourself if chemical weapons have truly been deployed, ...or whether they are simply detecting the residue of chemical weapons blown up by Israel?
How can one blow up a chemical weapons facility without releasing those very weapons into the air?
Is Israel attempting to manipulate maneuver the USA into position to justify putting boots on the ground?
...or are they clearing the population out of an area they hope to soon annex, ...while leaving the modern infrastructure intact?
-
Israel has already intervened militarily by bombing various chemical weapons depots within Syria.
I almost laughed out loud when I heard the newscaster make the claim that "Israel was defending itself when it bombed a Syrian government chemical weapons facility inside Syria. ::) ::)
When reports start coming in about drones or other technology detecting traces of chemical weapons in the air, you have to ask yourself if chemical weapons have truly been deployed, ...or whether they are simply detecting the residue of chemical weapons blown up by Israel?
How can one blow up a chemical weapons facility without releasing those very weapons into the air?
Is Israel attempting to manipulate maneuver the USA into position to justify putting boots on the ground?
...or are they clearing the population out of an area they hope to soon annex, ...while leaving the modern infrastructure intact?
Wasn't that attack on the chemical depots a couple of years ago or is that the strike on the nuclear facilities? The strike Israel a few days a go was on surface to surface missiles that were heading to Hezbollah for use in Lebanon.
I think, I haven't been keeping up lately.
I will say that the "LINES!!!" that have been drawn are totally arbitrary and useless, what's the point? You're dealing with a totally unstable situation where you can only hope that at least ONE of those in conflict is a rational actor.
-
maybe syria lacks the natural resources to make it worth the risk? I mean, they have some oil, but what do they rank worldwide? Worth a 3rd war and all the headache that goes with it? Are there easier places to get gas?
-
The worse thing Obama could do is provide assistance to the Islamists in Syria. The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has caused the United States a lot of blowback in the past.
-
obama is gonna get criticized no matter what the move.
*Most* repubs said we had no business going in. (Except mccain and the warmongers).
Common sense dictated we have 2 wars, we cannot afford a 3rd.
Now "Obama is a FAIL because he won't invade syria"....
Sorry, obama fails on many levels, but we can't solve all the world's problems.
-
obama is gonna get criticized no matter what the move.
*Most* repubs said we had no business going in. (Except mccain and the warmongers).
Common sense dictated we have 2 wars, we cannot afford a 3rd.
Now "Obama is a FAIL because he won't invade syria"....
Sorry, obama fails on many levels, but we can't solve all the world's problems.
Maybe he shouldn't have opened his fucking mouth and drew a red line then, eh?
Your pandering for this guy is so pathetic it's sad.
-
Maybe he shouldn't have opened his fucking mouth and drew a red line then, eh?
Your pandering for this guy is so pathetic it's sad.
LOL I haven't watched the news much lately. Was the red line for the use of chemical weapons?
-
Let's see....If its established Chemical Weapons are being used there and we don't do something what does that make our foray into Iraq in 2003 look like? lol
-
LOL I haven't watched the news much lately. Was the red line for the use of chemical weapons?
It stuns me that you comment on stuff that you have no idea about. Yes, the Obama regime established this "red line" months ago.
-
It stuns me that you comment on stuff that you have no idea about. Yes, the Obama regime established this "red line" months ago.
I come to getbig to learn. beats watching cable news.
what do you think obama should do? bomb/invade? I mean, he shoudn't have drawn that line unless he planned on backing it up.
So what now? invade or sit on thumbs?
-
I come to getbig to learn. beats watching cable news.
what do you think obama should do? bomb/invade? I mean, he shoudn't have drawn that line unless he planned on backing it up.
So what now? invade or sit on thumbs?
Here's an idea: he shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place.
I'm curious as to why he disputed the UN's charges that it was the rebels who used the Sarin. Sounds like he wants to invade.
-
Here's an idea: he shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place.
I'm curious as to why he disputed the UN's charges that it was the rebels who used the Sarin. Sounds like he wants to invade.
I agree he shouldn't have said that. What SHOULD we do? I dont think we should invade. I think it sucks, but we can only extend ourselves so far.
-
I agree he shouldn't have said that. What SHOULD we do? I dont think we should invade. I think it sucks, but we can only extend ourselves so far.
I think we should sit and watch Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah kill each other.
However, that is not relevant to the issue. The issue is that Obama drew a red line in the sand about Assad's use of chemical weapons. If we can only extend ourselves so far then you don't go drawing red lines in the sand and making empty threats.
However, all the Obama regime had to do was say that they agreed with the UN's report that it was the rebels who used the sarin gas and not Assad. Instead, the Obama regime disputed it. Why would they do that if they didn't want to invade? Obama had an easy out for his asinine comments (for now) and instead he digs himself into the hole.
-
we dont know (yet) if it in an empty threat.
If it ends up being the case, ,he looks weak and impotent.
however, there is still a chance the sun goes down and obama drops 100 JDAMs on them. Can't evaluate the situation quite yet. But yes, if he does nothing, he looks weak and soft. Great to let em kill each other - cause you know the moment USA boots hit the ground, the bad guys call a truce and turn their guns on us :(
-
Reports are out that it might have been the rebels who used chemical weapons.
And this is who O-TWINK wants to support?
-
Reports are out that it might have been the rebels who used chemical weapons.
And this is who O-TWINK wants to support?
Rubio intro'd a bipartisan bill to arm/give $ to these rebels using chemical weapons.
http://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=f5cef2e4-ad70-4026-b014-ae30b57a26d9
He is more like Obama every single day.
-
Rubio intro'd a bipartisan bill to arm/give $ to these rebels using chemical weapons.
http://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=f5cef2e4-ad70-4026-b014-ae30b57a26d9
He is more like Obama every single day.
No kidding - stop diverting.
-
Wasn't that attack on the chemical depots a couple of years ago or is that the strike on the nuclear facilities? The strike Israel a few days a go was on surface to surface missiles that were heading to Hezbollah for use in Lebanon.
I think, I haven't been keeping up lately.
I will say that the "LINES!!!" that have been drawn are totally arbitrary and useless, what's the point? You're dealing with a totally unstable situation where you can only hope that at least ONE of those in conflict is a rational actor.
It was a few days ago. I was reading in various Israeli papers that the IDF had bombed a chemical weapons facility..
...with nary a peep out of western media. Then a few days later, North American media started saying it was other types of munitions headed for Lebanon.
Rational? If there's any rational thinking in all this... I can't see it. Supplying arms, financing and god knows what else to AlQ to destabilize, and overthrow yet another gov't? Ya that's real rational. For the Israeli's to weaken the capabilities of the existing gov't in place, (by striking their facilities) and in so doing assisting the cause of AlQ terrorists fighting against the legitimate government of Syria is not very rational to me. But Israel has never appeared rational to me. Taking delivery on a nuclear sub in the midst of a nuclear non-proliferation summit spells more of chutzpah than rationality.
It appears that Israel is systematically pissing off it's top allies in the region.
First Turkey, then Egypt, ...if I were Saudi, ...I'd be very nervous about what Israel was planning next?
And if the US decides that Israel is too much of a liability, ...they may be painting themselves into a very dangerous corner.
As someone once wisely pointed out... the enemy of my enemy can sometimes be an even worse enemy.
-
No kidding - stop diverting.
I've already said obama was 100% wrong to draw a line, that we shouldn't intervene, and that is that.
now I'm learning which dems and repubs agree with his idiocy about arming the rebels.
-
maybe syria lacks the natural resources to make it worth the risk? I mean, they have some oil, but what do they rank worldwide? Worth a 3rd war and all the headache that goes with it? Are there easier places to get gas?
Syria is a strategic ally of Iran, ...one of the few places left on this planet without a Rothschild owned or controlled central bank.
They've been knocking them off one by one.
Libya was one, but as soon as they got rid of Gaddafi, ...up went a Rothschild's bank.
If I'm not mistaken... Iran & N. Korea, and one other whose name momentarily escapes me are the only one's left
-
UH OH: Obama Says We Have A 'Moral Obligation' In Syria
Agence France Presse|40 minutes ago|235|1
US President Barack Obama said Tuesday he had both a moral and a national security obligation to stop the slaughter in Syria, but warned he could not just act on a "hope and a prayer."
Obama defended his government's actions in sending large quantities of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees, providing non-lethal help to rebels and isolating President Bashar al-Assad in the international community.
"I think that understandably, there's a desire for easy answers," Obama said, referring to domestic critics who are demanding a more proactive US role, including an operation to arm rebel groups and a no-fly zone.
"My job is to constantly measure our very real and legitimate humanitarian and national security interests in Syria, but measuring those against my bottom line, which is, what's in the best interests of America's security."
Obama said that he could not make decisions "based on a hope and a prayer, but on hard-headed analysis in terms of what will actually make us safer and stabilize the region."
"I think that we have both a moral obligation and a national security interest in, A, ending the slaughter in Syria but, B, also ensuring that we've got a stable Syria that is representative of all the Syrian people and is not creating chaos for its neighbors," he said.
The president spoke as political critics complain that he has not acted more quickly on reports that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons, an action he had previously said would infringe a red line and be a game-changer.
He said that before acting, Washington must first establish exactly who had used chemical weapons and when, in an apparent reference to the flawed intelligence that led America into war with Iraq.
"I don't make decisions based on perceived," he said, when asked by a reporter about perceived violations of US red lines.
"I can't organize international coalitions around perceived. We've tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn't work out well."
"There have been several instances during the course of my presidency where I said I was going to do something, and it ended up getting done.
"In the end, whether it's bin Laden or Kadhafi, if we say we're taking a position, I would think at this point, the international community has a pretty good sense that we typically follow through on our commitments."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-moral-obligation-in-syria-2013-5#ixzz2ShgcTvfz
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/us-syria-aid-humanitarian_n_3237964.html
Obama the layabout spendthrift grifting looter he is - sending $100 Million to Syria
FORWARD!!!!!!
-
I've already said obama was 100% wrong to draw a line, that we shouldn't intervene, and that is that.
now I'm learning which dems and repubs agree with his idiocy about arming the rebels.
What's the ultimate end game in this whole scenario, 240?
Yes, as Fury posted earlier Obama was dead wrong and his whole intervention on this has been a disaster.
Arming the rebels without Israeli/United States presence just seems like a way for the overall death rate to potentially skyrocket and a battle that will simply drag out for who knows how long? Perhaps that is the best option?
-
What's the ultimate end game in this whole scenario, 240?
Yes, as Fury posted earlier Obama was dead wrong and his whole intervention on this has been a disaster.
Arming the rebels without Israeli/United States presence just seems like a way for the overall death rate to potentially skyrocket and a battle that will simply drag out for who knows how long? Perhaps that is the best option?
It's a tenuous situation. You support the secularists and you alienate the Bathists and the Islamists. If the Bathists are defeated you still have the Islamists and the secularist left. The likelihood of a civil war between the secularists and the Islamists is highly probable.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group
nice - obama is going to end up supporting al queada
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group
nice - obama is going to end up supporting al queada
And the cycle continues. Politicians need to crack open a history book. Truthfully, I'd rather the United States do nothing.
-
What's the ultimate end game in this whole scenario, 240?
Yes, as Fury posted earlier Obama was dead wrong and his whole intervention on this has been a disaster.
Arming the rebels without Israeli/United States presence just seems like a way for the overall death rate to potentially skyrocket and a battle that will simply drag out for who knows how long? Perhaps that is the best option?
The end game is WWIII
...but this can backfire in very unanticipated ways. They are hoping to cut off Iran from any support.
Syria & Iran have mutual defence treaties. By Israel attacking Syria, the hope is to draw Iran into a conflict, unfortunately, the rebels are non too happy about Israel bombing a major Syrian city, and many are vowing retaliation against Israel. So what could in effect result, is the Syrian rebels turning all the USA supplied assistance against Israel.
There will be retaliation without a doubt. As to what form it takes, ...we don't yet know, ...but I believe it will be very strategic, and possibly quite devastating.
-
WWIII is not the end game. One of the problems with conspiracy theorists is that they always contradict themselves. On one hand they claim there is a secret cabal that controls the financial interests of the world but in the same breath claim this same cabal wants to essentially destroy their own interests by causing a complete financial collapse of the global markets.
-
WWIII is not the end game. One of the problems with conspiracy theorists is that they always contradict themselves. On one hand they claim there is a secret cabal that controls the financial interests of the world but in the same breath claim this same cabal wants to essentially destroy their own interests by causing a complete financial collapse of the global markets.
WWIII and the complete destabilization of the Middle East is infact the end game.
You clearly don't know how the game is played.
A financial collapse does NOT go against their own interests... To the contrary. A financial collapse is only detrimental to those not positioned to capitalize on it. Everyone talks about the great crash of 1929 wiping out fortunes and ushering in the Great Depression. What people rarely talk about are those insiders who created massive fortunes BECAUSE of that very same market crash. Money & Wealth is never lost, ...it is simply transferred. And the greatest market transfer of wealth is about to occur.
The crash of 2008 created billionaires, as will the next great market crash. It is also intended to usher in the reset of the global monetary system and the issuance of the IMF gold backed fiat currency the SDR.
-
WWIII and the complete destabilization of the Middle East is infact the end game.
You clearly don't know how the game is played.
A financial collapse does NOT go against their own interests... To the contrary. A financial collapse is only detrimental to those not positioned to capitalize on it. Everyone talks about the great crash of 1929 wiping out fortunes and ushering in the Great Depression. What people rarely talk about are those insiders who created massive fortunes BECAUSE of that very same market crash. Money & Wealth is never lost, ...it is simply transferred. And the greatest market transfer of wealth is about to occur.
The crash of 2008 created billionaires, as will the next great market crash. It is also intended to usher in the reset of the global monetary system and the issuance of the IMF gold backed fiat currency the SDR.
Yet you do.
Tell us more, oh omnipotent one!!!! ::)
-
I know exactly how the game is played because unlike you, I have at least a rudementary understanding political and economic theory. The truth is you have no proof for anything you say. You cherry pick your information from a plethora of conspiracy theory websites. Your delusional opinions aren't even your own but cribbed almost verbatim from various ct websites. Ever think you might be the one being manipulated?
-
Yet you do. Who'd have thunk that a failed beauty queen/actress with a lazy eye and no education would have figured everything out on her own?
Tell us more, oh omnipotent one!!!! ::)
That's a good point! Why do these uneducated paranoid fools believe its possible that out of everybody they are the ones who figured out the dastardly plans of the global elite?
-
Yep,more stupid blabber from a CT'er.
-
I know exactly how the game is played because unlike you, I have at least a rudementary understanding political and economic theory. The truth is you have no proof for anything you say. You cherry pick your information from a plethora of conspiracy theory websites. Your delusional opinions aren't even your own but cribbed almost verbatim from various ct websites. Ever think you might be the one being manipulated?
Of course I've considered it. The first casualty of war has always been the truth.
Fact is I do not form my opinions based upon conspiracy theory websites. Quite the contrary, I use the "CT websites" to support & convey my opinions.
And I agree with Hugo. I think giving Israel the green light to attack Syria is going to turn around and bite everyone concerned on the butt!
-
Yep,more stupid blabber from a CT'er.
We'll see Ozzybooboo, we'll see.
And this time, I doubt I will have to wait years in order to say "I told you so"
-
Quite the contrary, I use the "CT websites" to support & convey
What this is called is confirmation bias and circular reasoning. You are specifically seeking out websites to affirm an opinion you already have. Its like a bible thumper quoting the bible to support his claim the bible is the word of god.
-
We'll see Ozzybooboo, we'll see.
And this time, I doubt I will have to wait years in order to say "I told you so"
::)
Can't make a legit argument? Do the next best thing....."we'll see".
Classic failure.
Classic thumper mentality
Classic delusional CT'er mentality.
-
Of course I've considered it. The first casualty of war has always been the truth.
Fact is I do not form my opinions based upon conspiracy theory websites. Quite the contrary, I use the "CT websites" to support & convey my opinions.
And I agree with Hugo. I think giving Israel the green light to attack Syria is going to turn around and bite everyone concerned on the butt!
How's it going to bite Israel on the butt? Assad will do nothing.
Hezbollah has been getting the shit kicked out of them in Syria. They lost 40 or so fighters in one day about a month ago. They're not doing anything. Wonder if your asinine CT made note of that. ::)
-
What this is called is confirmation bias and circular reasoning. You are specifically seeking out websites to affirm an opinion you already have. Its like a bible thumper quoting the bible to support his claim the bible is the word of god.
LOL... No circular reasoning there. I don't specifically seek out websites that affirm opinions I already have, ...I just post from websites that affirm my opinions. There are plenty of websites that have opposing views. In fact I am one who looks at all sides of an issue before I formulate an opinion. I'm also not one who is married to an opinion either. I'm perfectly willing to, ...and have changed positions on a matter based upon new information, or a different perspective not previously considered.
As Ozzybooboo has often pointed out, I won't take the time to formulate arguments here, ...but I will often post clips, pics, and articles that affirm my position, ...or on occasion provide food for thought.
Whether right or wrong, my opinions are what they are, ...and no amount of debate either within or outside of these boards whether victorious or not, will impact the truth or fallacy of my opinions. History will bear that out.
However, if you think the USA does not want to bring about a war, you better think again.
The people may not want it, the country can ill afford it, the POTUS may not even want one, but it is those who are in charge, the REAL powers behind the POTUS who are intent on bringing about the war, and as such... There will be one. By hook, or by crook, or by weapons of mass deception, they will get their war.
-
How's it going to bite Israel on the butt? Assad will do nothing.
Hezbollah has been getting the shit kicked out of them in Syria. They lost 40 or so fighters in one day about a month ago. They're not doing anything. Wonder if your asinine CT made note of that. ::)
I don't think the Islamists who are currently being supported by the USA, in their fight against a secularist Assad, are too crazy about Israel having bombed Syria. It would not surprise me in the least if these Islamist forces turned their US assistance against Israel. They have no chance to take on Israel head to head, however guerilla tactics could always be employed. There is no shortage of possibilities.
-
LOL... No circular reasoning there. I don't specifically seek out websites that affirm opinions I already have, ...I just post from websites that affirm my opinions. There are plenty of websites that have opposing views. In fact I am one who looks at all sides of an issue before I formulate an opinion. I'm also not one who is married to an opinion either. I'm perfectly willing to, ...and have changed positions on a matter based upon new information, or a different perspective not previously considered.
As Ozzybooboo has often pointed out, I won't take the time to formulate arguments here, ...but I will often post clips, pics, and articles that affirm my position, ...or on occasion provide food for thought.
Whether right or wrong, my opinions are what they are, ...and no amount of debate either within or outside of these boards whether victorious or not, will impact the truth or fallacy of my opinions. History will bear that out.
However, if you think the USA does not want to bring about a war, you better think again.
The people may not want it, the country can ill afford it, the POTUS may not even want one, but it is those who are in charge, the REAL powers behind the POTUS who are intent on bringing about the war, and as such... There will be one. By hook, or by crook, or by weapons of mass deception, they will get their war.
So pretty much you cannot back up what you say.
Another classic failure.
Welcome to the land of the looney CT'ers
-
So pretty much you cannot back up what you say.
Another classic failure.
Why should I have to back up my opinion. It is what it is.
History will either back me up, or prove me wrong, ...not endless debate on this board.
-
Why should I have to back up my opinion. It is what it is.
History will either back me up, or prove me wrong, ...not endless debate on this board.
So you have opinions but you can't or "choose not to" back them up.
Classic delusional CT'er mentality.
And then you talk to down to people as if its the truth. ::)
You are so full of shit.
-
LOL... No circular reasoning there. I don't specifically seek out websites that affirm opinions I already have, ...I just post from websites that affirm my opinions. There are plenty of websites that have opposing views. In fact I am one who looks at all sides of an issue before I formulate an opinion. I'm also not one who is married to an opinion either. I'm perfectly willing to, ...and have changed positions on a matter based upon new information, or a different perspective not previously considered.
As Ozzybooboo has often pointed out, I won't take the time to formulate arguments here, ...but I will often post clips, pics, and articles that affirm my position, ...or on occasion provide food for thought.
Whether right or wrong, my opinions are what they are, ...and no amount of debate either within or outside of these boards whether victorious or not, will impact the truth or fallacy of my opinions. History will bear that out.
However, if you think the USA does not want to bring about a war, you better think again.
The people may not want it, the country can ill afford it, the POTUS may not even want one, but it is those who are in charge, the REAL powers behind the POTUS who are intent on bringing about the war, and as such... There will be one. By hook, or by crook, or by weapons of mass deception, they will get their war.
You clearly stated you use CT websites to back up your claims.
-
I don't think the Islamists who are currently being supported by the USA, in their fight against a secularist Assad, are too crazy about Israel having bombed Syria. It would not surprise me in the least if these Islamist forces turned their US assistance against Israel. They have no chance to take on Israel head to head, however guerilla tactics could always be employed. There is no shortage of possibilities.
This makes no sense whatsoever. While they won't thank Israel, the Islamists are probably quite alright with Israel bombing the chemical weapons facility.
They're certainly not going to drop what they're doing in their fight against Assad to attack Israel. Especially considering the gains the SAA has made against the rebels lately. They're not in any position whatsoever to get into a fight with Israel and they're certainly not going to compromise their war against Assad by having Israel invade and squeeze them from the west. It would be suicide for them and they're not that stupid.
You clearly have no fucking idea as to what you're talking about.
-
This makes no sense whatsoever. While they won't thank Israel, the Islamists are probably quite alright with Israel bombing the chemical weapons facility.
They're certainly not going to drop what they're doing in their fight against Assad to attack Israel. Especially considering the gains the SAA has made against the rebels lately. They're not in any position whatsoever to get into a fight with Israel and they're certainly not going to compromise their war against Assad by having Israel invade and squeeze them from the west. It would be suicide for them and they're not that stupid.
You clearly have no fucking idea as to what you're talking about.
X2. The immediate objective of the Islamists is the defeat of Assad and the Baathist party he represents. It important to understand that there is a distinction between the Baathists party and the secularist contingency. What we have in Syria is three, not two, groups fighting for power. It's a supremely complicated situation.
-
This makes no sense whatsoever. While they won't thank Israel, the Islamists are probably quite alright with Israel bombing the chemical weapons facility.
They're certainly not going to drop what they're doing in their fight against Assad to attack Israel. Especially considering the gains the SAA has made against the rebels lately. They're not in any position whatsoever to get into a fight with Israel and they're certainly not going to compromise their war against Assad by having Israel invade and squeeze them from the west. It would be suicide for them and they're not that stupid.
You clearly have no fucking idea as to what you're talking about.
Its just her opinion and she's not obligated to back it up, but she's compelled to talk down to you as if its the truth and that you are less informed.
Classic delusional CT'er mentality.
-
So you have opinions but you can't or "choose not to" back them up.
Classic delusional CT'er mentality.
And then you talk to down to people as if its the truth. ::)
You are so full of shit.
Yes, I have opinions, and I choose not to back them up.
ps: The extra formatting does nothing to alter my opinion or my lack of desire to attempt to prove my opinions correct.
-
You clearly stated you use CT websites to back up your claims.
yes. I'm not going to waste valuable time to write out an essay.
If I come across something that echoes my feelings on a matter I'll post it, ...but it doesn't mean that these are the basis for my opinions, ..they just simply echo them on occassion. Other times, they just provide food for thought, adding in different perspectives that heretofore have not been part of the conversation.
-
Yes, I have opinions, and I choose not to back them up.
ps: The extra formatting does nothing to alter my opinion or my lack of desire to attempt to prove my opinions correct.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Another cowardly dodge.
-
This makes no sense whatsoever. While they won't thank Israel, the Islamists are probably quite alright with Israel bombing the chemical weapons facility.
The only thing that had previously kept the different middle eastern factions from open warfare has been their mutual hatred for Israel. That is the only thing that has united them.
They're certainly not going to drop what they're doing in their fight against Assad to attack Israel. Especially considering the gains the SAA has made against the rebels lately. They're not in any position whatsoever to get into a fight with Israel and they're certainly not going to compromise their war against Assad by having Israel invade and squeeze them from the west. It would be suicide for them and they're not that stupid.
Are you saying radical Islamists are not suicidal? lol.
I think there are a whole lot of random body parts all over the region that say otherwise. ;)
You clearly have no fucking idea as to what you're talking about.
If it comforts you to believe that, ...be my guest. History will either prove me correct or incorrect.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Another cowardly dodge.
No dodge.... cowardly or otherwise. I've made it quite clear.
I have no desire or intent to convince anyone of anything.
My opinions are what they are, and history will prove them either correct or incorrect.
What I don't understand is your obsession with me explaining my entire thought process to you,
...and why you get so darned hysterical when I don't. It's not like you value my opinion. So why the frustrated obsession?
-
No dodge.... cowardly or otherwise. I've made it quite clear.
I have no desire or intent to convince anyone of anything.
My opinions are what they are, and history will prove them either correct or incorrect.
What I don't understand is your obsession with me explaining my entire thought process to you,
...and why you get so darned hysterical when I don't. It's not like you value my opinion. So why the frustrated obsession?
Complete dodge.
Cowardly dodge
Evidence of an empty person. Nothing but blabber.
NO SUBSTANCE.
-
Complete dodge.
Cowardly dodge
Evidence of an empty person. Nothing but blabber.
NO SUBSTANCE.
If you say so... ::)
:-*
-
If you say so... ::)
:-*
you are what you are.
-
Are you saying radical Islamists are not suicidal? lol.
I think there are a whole lot of random body parts all over the region that say otherwise. ;)
Suicidal for their fake prophet and suicidal by bringing Israel into the conflict which would thus squeeze them on both sides are two different concepts. They aren't stupid and Jabhat Al-Nusra has learned quite a bit from Iraq.
Stupid? No. They know they can't afford to fight a two-front war and their fight is against Assad right now. They've been active in towns near the Israeli border for a while and yet they haven't attacked Israel yet. I wonder why.
You who hasn't the faintest idea as to what she's talking about.
-
Suicidal for their fake prophet and suicidal by bringing Israel into the conflict which would thus squeeze them on both sides are two different concepts. They aren't stupid and Jabhat Al-Nusra has learned quite a bit from Iraq.
Stupid? No. They know they can't afford to fight a two-front war and their fight is against Assad right now. They've been active in towns near the Israeli border for a while and yet they haven't attacked Israel yet. I wonder why.
You who hasn't the faintest idea as to what she's talking about.
Random terror attacks don't constitute a two front war. I don't think it would be any skin off their noses to recruit a suicide bomber or two, or three, or more to strap on suicide vests inside Israel. There are a ton of things they could do, and most likely will. Just my opinion, ...and I don't think the USA will care because their major objective is to isolate Iran. I don't think they'd have a problem with islamists letting off retaliatory steam against Israel, as long as they continue fighting Assad. I think a few factions are getting desperate at this point, having anticipated the toppling of Assad taking place quite some time ago, but Assad is still hanging on. Just the opinion of one who doesn't have the faintest idea what she's talking about.
-
Just the opinion of one who doesn't have the faintest idea what she's talking about.
I'm glad you can admit this. The healing can now begin.
-
I'm glad you can admit this. The healing can now begin.
;D. It's nice to see that not everyone has lost their sense of humour. :P
Like I said, ...wouldn't take long to say "I told ya so", ...but truthfully, I didn't think it would be this quick. 8)
Friendly Foes: If Israel targets Syrians, Rebels will stand with Assad
-
Frothing at the mouth? No. I just happen to think you're an uneducated, lazy-eyed c*nt, is all.
I'm actually quite enjoying embarrassing you all over this thread.
Bravo for being arrogant enough to claim "I told you so" because you posted a 2 minute video clip by a Kremlin-backed news source. ::)
-
Frothing at the mouth? No. I just happen to think you're an uneducated, lazy-eyed c*nt, is all.
I'm actually quite enjoying embarrassing you all over this thread.
Bravo for being arrogant enough to claim "I told you so" because you posted a 2 minute video clip by a Kremlin-backed news source. ::)
Kremlin backed source is irrelevant. What is relevant is a rebel spokesperson is threatening to stand with the Assad regime.
Such hostile responses from a post that does nothing but support my claim, comes across as a histrionic hissy meltdown to me. Are you incapable of composing a response that doesn't include an ad hom attack?
When one attacks the messenger rather than the message, it's usually indicative of a meltdown.
Again, my opinion is that Israel should tread rather carefully, ...lest the rebels choose to join with Assad and use those American supplied assistance against Israel. Above is a clip of a rebel spokesman echoing such a warning, that i'm using to support my claim.
What support do you have for your claim that such a thing could never occur? Hurling insults at me does nothing to support your claim that such an eventuality is ludicrous. What it does do is broadcast a meltdown in progress.
-
Kremlin backed source is irrelevant. What is relevant is a rebel spokesperson is threatening to stand with the Assad regime.
Such hostile responses from a post that does nothing but support my claim, comes across as a histrionic hissy meltdown to me. Are you incapable of composing a response that doesn't include an ad hom attack?
When one attacks the messenger rather than the message, it's usually indicative of a meltdown.
Again, my opinion is that Israel should tread rather carefully, ...lest the rebels choose to join with Assad and use those American supplied assistance against Israel. Above is a clip of a rebel spokesman echoing such a warning, that i'm using to support my claim.
What support do you have for your claim that such a thing could never occur? Hurling insults at me does nothing to support your claim that such an eventuality is ludicrous. What it does do is broadcast a meltdown in progress.
Oh yes, a "rebel spokesman". Until the leader of Al-Nusra gets on camera and says the same thing your claim is as much of a joke as anything else you do.
Moron.
By the way, the rebels are getting pretty worked over in the very strategic town of Al-Qusayr right now but they're going to drop what they're doing there to fight Israel. Hahahah!
-
Oh yes, a "rebel spokesman". Until the leader of Al-Nusra gets on camera and says the same thing your claim is as much of a joke as anything else you do.
If you say so.
Moron.
By the way, the rebels are getting pretty worked over in the very strategic town of Al-Qusayr right now but they're going to drop what they're doing there to fight Israel. Hahahah!
I didn't say they were going to drop what they're doing to fight israel.
I said it is not inconceivable that they would not recruit others to strap on a suicide vest and attack Israel.
If Israel continues to attack Syrian cities, we will see whether it was BS posturing or a credible threat or not.
-
bbooommmmmm
-
If you say so.
I didn't say they were going to drop what they're doing to fight israel.
I said it is not inconceivable that they would not recruit others to strap on a suicide vest and attack Israel.
If Israel continues to attack Syrian cities, we will see whether it was BS posturing or a credible threat or not.
I missed this gem. Let's all point and laugh at how stupid "24KT" is.
-
Please. Do you people actually think that those Palestinians, Arabs and muslims have any chance against these people?
;D
-
Yes, the rebels oppose the execrable Assad regime, but many of them also appear to be jihadists. Would a post-Assad Syria be more free or less free than it is now? More democratic or less democratic? Better for women or worse for women? No one knows.
What a junk article. Syria will be massively worse off if the rebels take over. Women's rights will be set back centuries.
-
What a junk article. Syria will be massively worse off if the rebels take over. Women's rights will be set back centuries.
Precisely. The entire country is being destabilized and destroyed, with innocent civilians being massacred each day, courtesy of Obama funded extremists. The reason the rhetoric and sabre rattling is picking up again, is because the rebels have been losing to Syria's forces, so the false flag chemical weapon red line talk has sparked up again. This is all part of the West's plans the further destabilize the Middle East.
The sheep of the West are a sickening lot, indifferent to the atrocities being committed against civilians in Syria and other countries. After all, they're not people over there like us, they're different. They lap up Obama's lies, buying into his false justifications for funding the actions of the most vile terrorists in the world.
The world is on the brink of a major war, which could be set off by the conflict in Syria. The U.S administrations need to stop intervening and interfering in regions of the world that are none of their fucking business. I'll include Israel, as they're nothing more than a shit disturber and hypocrite as well. All the U.S knows how to spread is debt and death, not freedom and democracy, like is constantly claimed. Too bad the mindless public of the West are too stupid to see through the same tired old propaganda that has been employed countless times before.
-
WWIII and the complete destabilization of the Middle East is infact the end game.
You clearly don't know how the game is played.
A financial collapse does NOT go against their own interests... To the contrary. A financial collapse is only detrimental to those not positioned to capitalize on it. Everyone talks about the great crash of 1929 wiping out fortunes and ushering in the Great Depression. What people rarely talk about are those insiders who created massive fortunes BECAUSE of that very same market crash. Money & Wealth is never lost, ...it is simply transferred. And the greatest market transfer of wealth is about to occur.
The crash of 2008 created billionaires, as will the next great market crash. It is also intended to usher in the reset of the global monetary system and the issuance of the IMF gold backed fiat currency the SDR.
This!