or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Our President's Weakness & Incompetence Will Lead to War
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Our President's Weakness & Incompetence Will Lead to War - Page 2

post #41 of 101
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
Our vote does not count anyway. 8 years Liberal 8 years Republican. that is the name of the game that is played in politics.

 

Except for all the times when this quite evidently isn't the case.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #42 of 101
SDW - you said this to me:
Quote:
There isn't much point in going through [the reply about Reagan and Bush's history], because it's really just unhinged.


Answer me this:

After Hezbollah killed 250 US Marines in 1982 - did Reagan do anything about it? Or did he cut and run?

Just before 9/11, did Bush and Cheney both go on 30-day vacations at the same time - after they were warned Bin Laden was "determined to strike the US?"

After 9/11, did Bush/Cheney cooperate with any investigation?

After 9/11, how come Bush/Cheney were against a cursory investigation of the event itself? After all, it was the BIGGEST ATTACK ON MAINLAND AMERICAN SOIL EVER.

On Bush's watch, how many embassy attacks were there? And how many casualties? How many investigations of these attacks were called for by Republicans?

During Iran Contra, did Ronald Reagan's administration start a war in Central America behind Congress' back?

During Iran Contra, why did Ronald Reagan's administration even fund the Contras, when many high-level Contra leaders were associated with known drug cartels?

Why did so many of Reagan's men get indicted/go to jail if there were no crimes committed?

Did Ronald Reagan's administration send several tons of missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in exchange for American hostages? And if so, why didn't Reagan just go in and get our people like a normal President? If Arab terrorists are holding Americans why would we pay them in missiles to get our people back?

I could go on and on...

But, SDW, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ABOVE LIST THAT IS NOT TRUE. AND YOU KNOW IT.

So quit your whining about Obama for a moment and meditate on the high crimes and wanton destruction THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE INFLICTED ON THIS NATION.

And finally, one last question. I'll leave you alone if you just answer this one question:

During Benghazi, if four Americans were not killed but instead, taken hostage ---- what if Obama decided to send billions of dollars in US missiles to the Libyan al-Qaeda terrorists in exchange for those hostages?

Would that be acceptable to you? Would you call for his impeachment? Is that a crime not just of appeasement and craven cowardice, but a serious violation of the Constitution?

Tell the truth: if Obama did these things --- would you call for punishment, or would you feel that it's okay?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IF YOU DON'T, WE KNOW YOU'RE A COWARD LIKE THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS - WHO SAT BY AND WATCHED OUR PRESIDENT GIVE WMD'S TO OUR OWN ENEMIES.
post #43 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer1138 View Post

SDW - you said this to me:
Answer me this:

After Hezbollah killed 250 US Marines in 1982 - did Reagan do anything about it? Or did he cut and run?

 

We withdrew.  If you choose to characterize it as cutting and running, that's fine.  

 



Just before 9/11, did Bush and Cheney both go on 30-day vacations at the same time - after they were warned Bin Laden was "determined to strike the US?

 

 

I don't see the relevance.  As the Obamatrons are quick to point out, the President can easily have a working vacation.  

 



After 9/11, did Bush/Cheney cooperate with any investigation?

 

Yes.  

 



After 9/11, how come Bush/Cheney were against a cursory investigation of the event itself? After all, it was the BIGGEST ATTACK ON MAINLAND AMERICAN SOIL EVER.

 

They weren't.  Bush initially opposed a commission. I don't know exactly why.  Do you?  

 



On Bush's watch, how many embassy attacks were there? And how many casualties? How many investigations of these attacks were called for by Republicans?

 

There were several, with more casualties than in Benghazi.  That does not make those attacks the same as Benghazi.  Benghazi is about denied security, the lack of preparation for an anniversary attack, lying to the public so that the attack didn't disrupt a campaign narrative, and issuing stand down orders instead of trying to help Americans in harms way.  

 

By the way, where was Obama that night?  Was he in the situation room?  

 

 



During Iran Contra, did Ronald Reagan's administration start a war in Central America behind Congress' back?

During Iran Contra, why did Ronald Reagan's administration even fund the Contras, when many high-level Contra leaders were associated with known drug cartels?

Why did so many of Reagan's men get indicted/go to jail if there were no crimes committed?

Did Ronald Reagan's administration send several tons of missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in exchange for American hostages? And if so, why didn't Reagan just go in and get our people like a normal President? If Arab terrorists are holding Americans why would we pay them in missiles to get our people back?

I could go on and on...

 

1.  I don't know you can say he "started" a war, but there was one.  Yes. 

 

2.  Because they saw communism as the greater enemy.  

 

3. I didn't claim no crimes were committed.  

 

4.  That's debatable.  In the end, I'd say yes.  However, I don't think that was the intent when the entire thing started, certainly not in Reagan's mind.  

 

 



But, SDW, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ABOVE LIST THAT IS NOT TRUE. AND YOU KNOW IT.

 

That's inaccurate.  

 

 

 



So quit your whining about Obama for a moment and meditate on the high crimes and wanton destruction THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE INFLICTED ON THIS NATION.

 

I am not whining. I also acknowledge that Republicans have caused problems, committed crimes, etc.  That doesn't excuse what Obama is doing, which in many ways is far worse and dangerous than anything you detailed.  

 

 



And finally, one last question. I'll leave you alone if you just answer this one question:

During Benghazi, if four Americans were not killed but instead, taken hostage ---- what if Obama decided to send billions of dollars in US missiles to the Libyan al-Qaeda terrorists in exchange for those hostages?

Would that be acceptable to you? Would you call for his impeachment? Is that a crime not just of appeasement and craven cowardice, but a serious violation of the Constitution?

Tell the truth: if Obama did these things --- would you call for punishment, or would you feel that it's okay?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IF YOU DON'T, WE KNOW YOU'RE A COWARD LIKE THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS - WHO SAT BY AND WATCHED OUR PRESIDENT GIVE WMD'S TO OUR OWN ENEMIES.
 

Ah, now we're down to false dilemma hypotheticals.  OK.  In that case, yes, I would be calling for his impeachment for directly aiding the enemy.  It's a silly question though, because it doesn't compare to Iran-Contra the way you think it does.  

 

Who gave WMD to our "own enemies?"     

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They weren't.  Bush initially opposed a commission. I don't know exactly why.  Do you?  

 

 

Nobody knows why. But to go to such lengths to avoid investigating the worst crime on US soil, in US history, is the complete opposite of what one would EXPECT a government to have done, that is, in the rational world, and secondly, if their account regarding the alleged perpetrators was anywhere near accurate,  representative of reality, or complete. In the rational world, one would also have *expected* heads to have rolled - by the hundred, perhaps court cases and jail terms on charges of criminal dereliction of duty/criminal incompetence, deliberate destruction of evidence, wholesale tampering with the crime scenes, perjury and more. But nothing... not a whisper. Not a single firing, not even a demotion, let alone criminal charges. Bizarrely, many of the heads and senior officials of departments and agencies which failed so catastrophically that morning were promoted or "laterally arabesqued" to other positions, and this evaded responsibility. 

 

If the official account of 9/11 was accurate, and complete, then why the 441 days of stonewalling, obfuscations, delays and more, before the reluctant authorization of the so-called 9/11 Commission? In a rational world, and if their account was correct and complete, it would be of paramount importance to find out (how the ****) 19 rookies not only disabled but also ran rings around the world's most elaborate defense and intelligence apparatus, in their own front yard, in plain sight, for an hour and a half, without challenge. But no...they were dead set against such a concept. 

 

The resulting 9/11 Commission was billed as "independent"... a total lie - it was directed by Bush Administration hardliner and insider Philip Zelikow - who effectively hijacked the investigation from start to finish. Zelikow had the power to determine what was brought to the table and what was not to be discussed. The 9/11 Commission's final report has been described as a classic example of "dry labbing". In scientific circles this means "starting out with a theory, which you then prove by omitting all contrary material", the classic methodology of pseudoscience.  According to the Commission's co-chairs Kean and Hamilton, the Bush White House did everything in its power to derail the open inquiry. Then, when faced with its inevitability, "the president and his aides sought to limit its scope, its access and its funding".  It was also placed under severe time constraints.  Both 9/11 Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton haves stated publicly that the 9/11 Commission was "deliberately set up to fail" by the Bush/Cheney White House.

 

In the wake of 9/11, and the "Commission's final report, nothing fundamental was changed that could truly lessen the threat of a major attack. For example, >2000 undocumented people still cross the border from Mexico to the US every day; >99% of all the containers coming through US ports still do *not* get inspected. Various "free trade" agreements (NAFTA etc) passed after 9/11 now permit trucks to cross borders without inspection.... and more. It was also claimed that the WTC buildings failed on account of the local damage from the plane impacts and subsequent fire, including one building which was never hit by a plane. As a result of such an unexpected outcome (contrary to the architects' design specifications) the rational expectation would have been to initiate a series of nationwide inspections and retro-fittings re. building performances in emergencies, and to implement new building codes to prevent such catastrophic failures on account of fires in the future. Nope. Nothing happened. I guess nobody's too bothered regarding the outcome of fires in skyscrapers? 

 

What did happen however, was a series of acts of congress, that took away or emasculated many of our hard won civil rights and liberties. The executive branch gained almost dictatorial status at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches (a trend that has accelerated dramatically under Obama). They also engaged in a series of wars that would never have gained public or congressional support without (an event like) 9/11. They flouted the Constitution and spied wholesale on the US public from within the US. Businesses owned by people close to the administration made out like bandits from no bid contracts. Then there was a spate of corporate crime involving household names like WorldCom, Tyco, Enron etc., in which élite businessmen wrecked their companies, but made fortunes in the process. Then, criminal entities within the financial sector ran the economy into the ground, made vast fortunes and there was not single solitary prosecution. We then gave them $Trillions in corporate welfare payments on the taxpayer.... and nobody did squat.

 

We were shocked and awed by the psychological hammer-blow of watching that event played out on every television channel, in real time...while a series of talking heads - from the administration itself - told us repeatedly who was responsible, while both towers were still standing and burning, and that the "attack bore the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden's "al Qaeda" network, even though "al Qaeda's" previously acts were crude truck bombings in the Middle East.

 

This attack was 100% out of pattern for any mid eastern militant group, but we believed it. We became meek. We became stupefied. We became stupid. We became subservient, obedient and led by the nose. We believed what we preferred to believe. We failed to ask questions. We were scared of appearing "unpatriotic". We became, en masse, unAmerican.

 

We were told that "they attacked us because they hate our freedoms". That was the only motive given to us by the powers-that-be... and ironically, it appears that this might have been true, if we look back at what happened afterwards. It's now probably too late...so much damage has been done it will take decades to reverse it. History, regardless of veracity, has been written.

 

En masse, we failed America. Our founding fathers must have been watching us, in abject disbelief and utter disgust.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #45 of 101

Sammi, is it possible that not wanting to investigate may have been motivated by not wanting to reveal incompetence rather than covering up an inside job?  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #46 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Sammi, is it possible that not wanting to investigate may have been motivated by not wanting to reveal incompetence rather than covering up an inside job?  

 

If we leave the "inside job" explanation out of it, and veer towards "incompetence", at what point does "incompetence" assume the status of "let it happen"?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #47 of 101

Cite how many times in the past elections i was right what I posted.This is the norm of elections.
 

post #48 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Sammi, is it possible that not wanting to investigate may have been motivated by not wanting to reveal incompetence rather than covering up an inside job?  

 

The Bush Administration didn't oppose investigating what happened.  They initially opposed a special commission.  Isn't it also possible they didn't want it to become the useless circus it became?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

If we leave the "inside job" explanation out of it, and veer towards "incompetence", at what point does "incompetence" assume the status of "let it happen"?

 

Do you have any evidence that this is true, or are you just espousing conspiracy theories again?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

The Bush Administration didn't oppose investigating what happened.  They initially opposed a special commission.  Isn't it also possible they didn't want it to become the useless circus it became?  

 

 

Despite the US historical record of a rapid convening of special investigations in the event of a national disaster (such as the JFK assassination and both Space Shuttle accidents), the Bush Administration opposed the creation of *any* investigation, right from the start. The initial joint Congressional Inquiry was vehemently opposed by Cheney, who leaned heavily on Senator Tom Daschle to this effect.

 

After 441 days of stonewalling and obfuscation by the White House, the 9/11 Commission got under way, and instantly became - as you put it - a "useless circus" because the entire charade, falsely sold to the American public as an "independent inquiry" with "no stones left unturned", was under the tight control of Philip Zelikow, a Bush Administration insider, and avowed "neocon", dual US-Israeli citizen, and an Islamophobe to boot. If there was ever a case of conflict of interest, or the Mafia investigating the Genovese Family, this was the classic example. The Commission was a useless circus because it was lied to by the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FAA, NORAD and the White House, it was denied adequate funding, it was placed under severe time constraints, 80%+ of the evidence presented was not discussed, and the only material which made it to the final report was obtained using single-sourced material extracted by torturing prisoners. Zelikow even “buried” the option of a criminal referral by the Commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation. It became a "useless circus" because the US authorities did not permit otherwise. 

 

The 9/11 Commission's final report, released in 2004 with much mainstream media hoopla as the "definitive analysis" of 9/11 (!!!!!), all gussied up to make it appear "official and authoritative" to the uninitiated reader, was the classic example of a dry-labbed study where the conclusion was predetermined, and the "evidence" that supported this preordained conclusion was carefully cherry-picked and fabricated, while all contrary evidence or material that pointed to a different conclusion, was rejected.... in other words, the classic pseudo-science scenario. This was Philip Zelikow's job, who as executive director of the Commission, was to carefully sift through the all material to determine what was permitted to go in front of the panel to be discussed, and what was to be censored.

 

Quote:
Do you have any evidence that this is true, or are you just espousing conspiracy theories again?  

 

There is a vast wealth of hard scientific, successfully peer-reviewed information out there, which still stands un-rebutted by peer-reviewed opposing studies. Much of the evidence contributing to these studies is from government sources, agencies and departments, and respected institutions and universities. In addition there are numerous dependent analyses. They all point to not who the culprits were, but that the the story we were told was untrue, a fairytale, a yarn with some outlandish (even impossible) claims and characteristics. 

 

Are you not capable of sustaining a discussion on this topic without regressing to the infantile? I guess not. Repeated invocation of "conspiracy theory" only trashes whatever cause you are trying to promote.


Edited by sammi jo - 6/13/13 at 2:33pm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #50 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

 

Despite the US historical record of a rapid convening of special investigations in the event of a national disaster (such as the JFK assassination and both Space Shuttle accidents), the Bush Administration opposed the creation of *any* investigation, right from the start. The initial joint Congressional Inquiry was vehemently opposed by Cheney, who leaned heavily on Senator Tom Daschle to this effect.

 

Ridiculous.  And I'd like a link on the Cheney claim, please. 

 

 

 

Quote:
After 441 days of stonewalling and obfuscation by the White House, the 9/11 Commission got under way, and instantly became - as you put it - a "useless circus" because the entire charade, falsely sold to the American public as an "independent inquiry" with "no stones left unturned", was under the tight control of Philip Zelikow, a Bush Administration insider, and avowed "neocon", dual US-Israeli citizen, and an Islamophobe to boot.

 

Of course he was. 

 

 

 

Quote:
If there was ever a case of conflict of interest, or the Mafia investigating the Genovese Family, this was the classic example. The Commission was a useless circus because it was lied to by the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FAA, NORAD and the White House,

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

Quote:
it was denied adequate funding, it was placed under severe time constraints, 80%+ of the evidence presented was not discussed,

 

 and the only material which made it to the final report was obtained using single-sourced material extracted by torturing prisoners. Zelikow even “buried” the option of a criminal referral by the Commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation. It became a "useless circus" because the US authorities did not permit otherwise. 

 

 

Quote:
The 9/11 Commission's final report, released in 2004 with much mainstream media hoopla as the "definitive analysis" of 9/11 (!!!!!), all gussied up to make it appear "official and authoritative" to the uninitiated reader, was the classic example of a dry-labbed study where the conclusion was predetermined, and the "evidence" that supported this preordained conclusion was carefully cherry-picked and fabricated, while all contrary evidence or material that pointed to a different conclusion, was rejected.... in other words, the classic pseudo-science scenario. This was Philip Zelikow's job, who as executive director of the Commission, was to carefully sift through the all material to determine what was permitted to go in front of the panel to be discussed, and what was to be censored.

 

Again, nice theory.  Some actual evidence of your assertion would be nice. 

 

 

 

Quote:

There is a vast wealth of hard scientific, successfully peer-reviewed information out there, which still stands un-rebutted by peer-reviewed opposing studies. Much of the evidence contributing to these studies is from government sources, agencies and departments, and respected institutions and universities. In addition there are numerous dependent analyses. They all point to not who the culprits were, but that the the story we were told was untrue, a fairytale, a yarn with some outlandish (even impossible) claims and characteristics. 

 

Are you not capable of sustaining a discussion on this topic without regressing to the infantile? I guess not. Repeated invocation of "conspiracy theory" only trashes whatever cause you are trying to promote.

 

 

Sammi, sammi, sammi....surely you can acknowledge you have acquired a reputation as a conspiracy theorist on these boards.  In fact, don't think I've ever seen you accept any official explanation of, well, anything.  You've made some pretty wild accusations over the years on everything from 9/11 to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now don't get me wrong...I have no problem at all with conspiracy theories and happen to think many of them may have actually happened the way the proponents of them describe.  But the difference is that I recognize this is not proof of any kind.  I acknowledge that when engaging in conspiracy theorizing, that's what we're doing...theorizing.  You don't seem willing to do that and are instead taking my statement as a personal attack (which it's not intended to be).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Ridiculous.  And I'd like a link on the Cheney claim, please.   

Even the mainstream media retains some information on this. Don't believe CNN? Then try this one. Or if you dare, this. A bunch of bizarre. On the occasion of the greatest national security breach in the US history - had the attack been as claimed - the rational course of action would have been to investigate, no holds barred, with no stones left unturned, no weaseling out by quoting that old 'national security' canard, as to how in hell 19 rank amateurs pulled it off, considering the odds they had to overcome for the operation to succeed in the way it did.

 

The object of the investigation - had the attack been as claimed - would have been find the sources of gross ineptitude, perhaps criminal dereliction of duty, as regards the conduct/performance of key personnel within the departments that failed so horrendously that morning, and change protocols that contributed to such massive failure, to make damned sure nothing like it could ever happen again.

 

But no, the administration closed ranks and ran in the opposite direction. Key people and heads of agencies and departments that screwed up - had the attacks been as claimed - were promoted or moved to positions in other departments (!). For a few examples amongst many others:

Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11 - Promoted.

Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11 - Promoted.

 

Marion (Spike) Bowman, blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11 - Promoted  

Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York - Promoted 

Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit - Promoted 

David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit - not fired!

Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director - Promoted. 

Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) - Promoted.

Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11 - Promoted  

Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness - Promoted

etc. etc.

 

If you're in the military brass, or you have a senior management position in private sector or government, and screw up as bad as its possible to screw up... is promotion the usual response?  Sen. Charles Grassley noted: “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11.  It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.”. According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.

 

If it hadn't been for the efforts of the Jersey Girls, there would likely have been no 9/11 Commission at all; it was the threat of bad P.R., that got the Bush Administration to (very reluctantly) authorize the "inquiry", when they were very clearly wanted to avoid investigating the attack.

 

 

So, why did they do the opposite of what we would rationally expect - had the attacks been as claimed? Whose liberty might have been threatened had a proper inquiry been undertaken with full subpoena power and a Monica Lewinsky blow-job sized budget? More al Qaeda agents that we haven't been told about yet? 

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

 

 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #52 of 101

Syrian conflict expands again-

 

"Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria-
 
In years to come, historians will ask how America – after its defeat in Iraq and its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for  2014 – could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism, between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohamed’s wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor...
 
 From now on, therefore, every suicide bombing in Damascus - every war crime committed by the rebels - will be regarded in the region as Washington’s responsibility. The very Sunni-Wahabi Islamists who killed thousands of Americans on 11th September, 2011 – who are America’s greatest enemies as well as Russia’s – are going to be proxy allies of the Obama administration. This terrible irony can only be exacerbated by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s adament refusal to tolerate any form of Sunni extremism."
 
The main reason why the West is behaving differently to Russia is because the West wants to spread democracy. Without it, countries outside of Europe will never be allowed into the EU. Russia wants to keep its sovereignty. Quite how the West will turn Syria into a democracy though  is not clear. And European people aren't stupid. When the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt, European's don't suddenly think, "Oh come on into Europe, you believe in democracy so you must share our values!". Not that their opinions will matter to the MSM and politicians anyway. They'll just call them "racists".

Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/16/13 at 8:45am
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #53 of 101
 
The main reason why the West is behaving differently to Russia is because the West wants to spread democracy. Without it, countries outside of Europe will never be allowed into the EU. Russia wants to keep its sovereignty. Quite how the West will turn Syria into a democracy though  is not clear. And European people aren't stupid. When the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt, European's don't suddenly think, "Oh come on into Europe, you believe in democracy so you must share our values!". Not that their opinions will matter to the MSM and politicians anyway. They'll just call them "racists".

 

"The West wants to spread democracy". Surely you don't believe the baseless rhetoric that perpetually emanates from the mouths of politicians and spread by the complicit corporate media weasels and knee-padders? lol.gif Examples please? Mali doesn't count! 1rolleyes.gif

 

The West, most especially the US government - has a far more extensive history of wrecking democracies and/or installing/supporting malleable dictators, thugs autocrats and monarchs. Here's a list of examples in recent decades, just in case you were not aware:

 

 

Africa

1.     MOBUTU SESE SEKO  Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997

2.    MOHAMMED SIAD BARR President/Dictator of Somalia 1969-1991

3.    GEN. IBRAHIM BABANGIDA Military Dictator/President of Nigeria 1985-1993

4.    GEN. SANI ABACHA Dictator of Nigeria 1993-1998

5.    HASTINGS KAMUZU - BANDA - Dictator of Malawi 1966-1994

6.    LAURENT-DÉSIRÉ KABILA - President/Dictator of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 1997-2001

7.    GNASSINGBE ETIENNE EYADEMA Dictator of Togo 1967-2005

8.    FELIX HOUPHOUET-BOIGNY - Dictator/President of the Ivory Coast 1960-1993

9.    HASSAN II - King of Morocco 1961-1999 - 10.  

10.  TEODORO OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO - President/Dictator of Equatorial Guinea 1979-present

11.  ZINE EL ABIDINE BEN ALI - President-Prime Minister/Dictator of Tunisia 1987-2011

12.  ANWAR EL-SADAT- President/Dictator of Egypt 1970-1981

13.  HOSNI MUBARAK - President/Dictator of Egypt 1981-present

14.  IAN SMITH - Prime Minister of Rhodesia (white minority regime) 1965-1979

15.  PIETER WILLEM BOTHA - Prime Minister of South Africa (white minority regime) 1978-1984, President 1984-1989

16.  DANIEL ARAP MOI - President/Dictator of Kenya 1978-2002

17.  HAILE SELASSIE (RAS TAFARI) - Emperor of Ethiopia 1928-1974

18.  WILLIAM J. S. TUBMAN - President/Dictator of Liberia 1944-1971

19.  SAMUEL KANYON DOE  - Dictator of Liberia 1980-1990

Asia

20.  MOHAMED SUHARTO - Dictator of Indonesia 1966-1998

21.  NGO DINH DIEM - President/Dictator of South Vietnam 1955-1963

22.  GEN. NGUYEN KHANH  - Dictator of South Vietnam 1964-1965

23.  NGUYEN CAO KY - Dictator of South Vietnam 1965-1967

24.  GEN. NGUYEN VAN THIEU - President/Dictator of South Vietnam 1967-1975

25.  TRAN THIEM KHIEM - Prime Minister of South Vietnam 1969-75

26.  BAO DAI  - Emperor of Vietnam 1926-1945, chief of state 1949-1955

27.  LEE KUAN YEW - Prime Minister/Dictator of Singapore 1959-1990; behind-the scenes ruler since then.

28.  EMOMALI RAHMONOV - President/Dictator of Tajikistan 1992-present

29.  NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV - President of Kazakhstan 1990-present

30.  ISLAM A. KARIMOV  - President/Dictator of Uzbekistan 1990-present

31.  SAPARMURAD ATAYEVICH NIYAZOV - President/Dictator of Turkmenistan 1990-2006

32.  MARSHAL LUANG PIBUL SONGGRAM - Dictator of Thailand 1948-1957

33.  FIELD MARSHAL THANOM KITTIKACHORN  - Prime Minister/Dictator of Thailand 1957-58, 1963-1973

34.  CHIANG KAI-SHEK - President/Dictator (Nationalist) of China 1928-1949 - President/Dictator of Taiwan 1949-1975

35.  CHIANG CHING-KUO - President/Dicator of Taiwan 1978-1988; Prime Minister 1972-1978

36.  DENG XIAOPING - De facto ruler of China from circa 1978 to the early 1990s

37.  FERDINAND MARCOS - President/Dictator of the Philippines 1965-1986

38.  SYNGMAN RHEE  - President/Dictator of South Korea 1948-1960

39.  GEN. PARK CHUNG HEE - President/Dictator of South Korea 1962-1979

40.  GEN. CHUN DOO HWAN  - President/Dictator of South Korea 1980-1988

41.  SIR MUDA HASSANAL BOLKIAH - Sultan of Brunei 1967-present

42.  GEN. LON NOL  - Prime Minister/Dictator of Cambodia 1970-1975

43.  POL POT - Dictator of Cambodia 1975-1979

44.  MAJ. GEN. SITIVENI RABUKA  - Dictator of Fiji 1987-1999

45.  ASKAR AKAYEV - President of Kyrgyzstan 10/27/1990-2005

Europe

46.  FRANCISCO FRANCO - Dictator of Spain 1939-1975

47.  ANTONIO SALAZAR DE OLIVEIRA - Dictator of Portugal 1928-1968

48.  COL. GEORGIOS PAPADOPOULOS  - Prime Minister/President/Dictator of Greece 1967-1973

Latin America

49.  ANASTASIO SOMOZA GARCIA  - Dictator of Nicaragua 1937-1947, 1950-1956 

50.  ANASTASIO “TACHITO” SOMOZA DEBAYLE - Dictator of Nicaragua 1967-1972, 1974-1979

51.  MANUEL ESTRADA CABRERA  - Dictator of Guatemala 1898-1920

52.  GEN. JORGE UBICO CASTANEDA  - Dictator of Guatemala 1931-1944

53.  COL. CARLOS ENRIQUE CASTILLO ARMAS - Dictator of Guatemala 1954-1957

54.  GEN. JOSE MIGUEL YDIGORAS FUENTES - President/Dictator of Guatemala 1958-1963

55.  COL. ENRIQUE PERALTA AZURDIA - Military Junta, Guatemala 1963-1966

56.  COL.CARLOS ARANA OSORIO - Dictator of Guatemala 1970-1974

57.  GEN. FERNANDO ROMEO LUCAS GARCIA - Dictator of Guatemala 1978-1982

58.  GEN. JOSE EFRAIN RIOS MONTT - Dictator of Guatemala 1982-1983

59.  MARCO VINICIO CEREZO ARÉVALO - President/Dictator of Guatemala 1986-1991

60.  MAXIMILIANO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ  - Dictator of El Salvador 1931-1944

61.  COL. OSMIN AGUIRRE Y SALINAS - Dictator of El Salvador 1944-1945

62.  CIVILIAN-MILITARY JUNTA, EL SALVADOR, 1961-1962

63.  COL. ARTURO ARMANDO MOLINA BARRAZA - Dictator of El Salvador 1972-1977

64.  JUNTA, EL SALVADOR 1979-1982

65.  ALFREDO FÉLIX CRISTIANI BUKARD - President/Dictator of El Salvador 1989-1994

66.  TIBURCIO CARIAS ANDINO  - Dictator of Honduras 1932-1948

67.  COL. OSWALDO LOPEZ ARELLANO - Dictator of Honduras 1963-1975

68.  ROBERTO SUAZO CORDOVA - President/Dictator of Honduras 1982-1986

69.  GEN. OMAR HERRERA-TORRIJOS  - Dictator of Panama 1969-1981

70.  GEN. MANUEL ANTONIO MORENA NORIEGA  - Dictator of Panama 1982-1989

71.  AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE - Dictator of Chile 1973-1990

72.  GEN. JORGE RAFAEL VIDELA  - Dictator of Argentina 1976-1981

73.  COL. MARCOS PEREZ JIMENEZ  - Dictator of Venezuela 1950-1958

74.  GEN. ALFREDO STROESSNER - Dictator of Paraguay 1954-1989

75.  ALBERTO FUJIMORI - Dictator of Peru 1990-2000

76.  FRANCOIS “PAPA DOC” DUVALIER - Dictator of Haiti 1957-1971

77.  JEAN-CLAUDE “BABY DOC” DUVALIER - Dictator of Haiti 1971-1986

78.  MILITARY JUNTA / LT. GEN. RAOUL CEDRAS, GEN. PHILIPPE BIAMBY and LT. COL. MICHEL-JOSEPH FRANCO - Haiti 1991-1994

79.  GEN. RENE BARRIENTOS ORTUNO  - President/Dictator of Bolivia 1964-1969 

80.  GEN. HUGO BANZER SUAREZ - Dictator of Bolivia 1971-1978

81.  DR. GETULIO VARGAS  - Dictator of Brazil 1930-1945, 1951-1954 

82.  GEN. HUMBERTO DE ALENCAR CASTELLO BRANCO  - Dictator of Brazil 1964-1967

83.  CARLOS PRIO SOCARRAS  - Dictator of Cuba 1948-1952

84.  FULGENCIO BATISTA - Dictator of Cuba 1933-44, 1952-1959

85.  GERARDO MACHADO MORALES  - Dictator of Cuba 1925-1933

86.  RAFAEL LEONIDAS TRUJILLO - Dictator of the Dominican Republic 1930-1961

Middle East

87.  MOHAMMED REZA PAHLAVI - Shah of Iran 1941-1979

88.  SADDAM HUSSEIN - Dictator of Iraq 1969 (1979)-2003

89.  GEN. MOHAMMED AYUB KHAN  - President/Dictator of Pakistan 1958-1969

90.  GEN. AGHA MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN  - President/Dictator of Pakistan 1969-1971

91.  GEN. MOHAMMAD ZIA UL-HAQ  - President/Dictator of Pakistan 1977-1988

92.  PERVEZ MUSHARRAF - Dictator of Pakistan 1999-2008

93.  ABDUL IBN HUSSEIN I  - King of Jordan 1952-1999

94.  TURGUT ÖZAL - Prime Minister of Turkey 1983-1989, President 1989-1993 

95.  SHEIK JABIR AL-AHMAD AL SABAH  - Emir of Kuwait 1977-2006 Prime Minister of Kuwait 1962-1963, 1965-1978

96.  FAHD IBN ABDUL-AZIZ AL SAUD  King and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia 1982-2005

 

Notice that it is politically too incorrect to include a certain German (Austrian) guy in most of the lists of US/western supported thuggery. However, to quote:

 

As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over US troops, Sosthenes Behn president and founder of the US based ITT corporation, met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. The US government knew all about this, for under a presidential order, US companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though. While the Secretary of State gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the US wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy. Other US companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them, fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower US morale. Besides, the same companies that traded with Hitler were supplying the US with its armaments, and some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler's. His book -- The International Jew -- had Inspired Hltler's Mein Kampf. The Fuhrer kept Ford's picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany's highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country -- the United States of America.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #54 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The main reason why the West is behaving differently to Russia is because the West wants to spread democracy. Without it, countries outside of Europe will never be allowed into the EU. Russia wants to keep its sovereignty. Quite how the West will turn Syria into a democracy though  is not clear. And European people aren't stupid. When the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt, European's don't suddenly think, "Oh come on into Europe, you believe in democracy so you must share our values!". Not that their opinions will matter to the MSM and politicians anyway. They'll just call them "racists".

 

Assuming it is actually true that the West (US in particular) wants to "spread democracy," is this something you support or advocate?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #55 of 101
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Assuming it is actually true that the West (US in particular) wants to "spread democracy," is this something you support or advocate?

Democracy without a US type constitutionto back it up is useless. Thuggery rules...

As to sammio, it's not that democracy has been paramount... It's essential because it's a way to ensure control through the EU as per Europe. She missed the point here.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #56 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Democracy without a US type constitutionto back it up is useless. Thuggery rules...

 

Yet thuggery rules even WITH a "US type constitution". Perhaps it's time to try liberty?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #57 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Yet thuggery rules even WITH a "US type constitution". Perhaps it's time to try liberty?

Creeping and sinister erosion that's for sure.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #58 of 101
Thread Starter 

Been pretty AWOL this summer from AI....I see sammi is still at it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Been pretty AWOL this summer from AI....I see sammi is still at it.  

 

I barely contribute these days; P.O. used to be a great board, but now we have threads like "miscellaneous news" etc, in which the unwieldy, mixed-bag nature of the thread makes it impractical to carry out a coherent argument re. any one of so many subjects which get all lumped in together. Many threads quickly go off topic or get hijacked, and many of the people who used to come here, who had a bunch of interesting things to say, from all over the political spectrum from left to right, have quit. Then there was the "Islam Watch" thread which, rather than being used for rational discussion of militant Islam, became a billboard for one particular poster to vent his/her hatred. It seems as if P.O. is dead in the water. Oh well.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #60 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

I barely contribute these days; P.O. used to be a great board, but now we have threads like "miscellaneous news" etc, in which the unwieldy, mixed-bag nature of the thread makes it impractical to carry out a coherent argument re. any one of so many subjects which get all lumped in together. Many threads quickly go off topic or get hijacked, and many of the people who used to come here, who had a bunch of interesting things to say, from all over the political spectrum from left to right, have quit. Then there was the "Islam Watch" thread which, rather than being used for rational discussion of militant Islam, became a billboard for one particular poster to vent his/her hatred. It seems as if P.O. is dead in the water. Oh well.

Wow, you're a fine one to talk. Your foreign policy contributions consist primarily of screaming "The Jews did it! the Jews did it!", in not too subtle ways, despite the thread topic. We can do without your hatred of Jews here. Chow Islammi jo.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #61 of 101

I do not really think you hate the Jews in your heart. This is a facade you are putting on.
 

post #62 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

I barely contribute these days; P.O. used to be a great board, but now we have threads like "miscellaneous news" etc, in which the unwieldy, mixed-bag nature of the thread makes it impractical to carry out a coherent argument re. any one of so many subjects which get all lumped in together. Many threads quickly go off topic or get hijacked, and many of the people who used to come here, who had a bunch of interesting things to say, from all over the political spectrum from left to right, have quit. Then there was the "Islam Watch" thread which, rather than being used for rational discussion of militant Islam, became a billboard for one particular poster to vent his/her hatred. It seems as if P.O. is dead in the water. Oh well.

Pretty much.

post #63 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Wow, you're a fine one to talk. Your foreign policy contributions consist primarily of screaming "The Jews did it! the Jews did it!", in not too subtle ways, despite the thread topic.

 

 

"The Jews" did what? What Jews? Evidence?...or are you stamping your feet again like a bratty little boy?

 

Quote
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

 We can do without your hatred of Jews here. Chow Islammi jo.

 

"Islammi jo": You wear your true colors on your shoulder with that phrase - another 3rd grade (at best), infantile, ad hominem. Just because I don't share your extreme paranoia and hatred doesn't mean to say that I harbor alternative hatreds; I have no hatred for anyone on any grounds, be it religious, racial, sexual orientation or whatever. Just because I have occasionally leveled some criticism of the Israeli Likudists, and their US sponsors - you think I hate all the Jews? that's *crazy* talk. Either your comprehension skills must be pretty damned poor, or did you get into a fight with the kids from the corner store in your youth and still can't let it go?

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

And as regards your signature quotation, here the complete context:

 

“The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this. Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They don’t build; they only destroy. [...] The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

 

I have about as much respect for Obama as I did for Bush/Cheney - but do try to include the complete quote, rather than cherrypick something that implies a different sentiment...


Edited by sammi jo - 8/17/13 at 4:19pm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #64 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I seem to remember expressing serious concern that Obama's actions will lead to war. What is it that liberals and leftists don't understand about "Peace Through Strength." ?

War is inevitable regardless of which corrupt political party is in control in Washington. If the US wants to be engaged in foreign affairs, there will be war. The only way to avoid it is to withdraw completely from all foreign nations, cut off all foreign aid, cancel all foreign visas, make our borders impenetrable and cut off all Internet connections from foreign IP addresses. We should also reestablish the not for export computer technology laws. Screw Apple with their Chinese operations. Shut it down. No more imports, period. Tough pill to swallow but it is the only hope. That would probably still cause a war because other nations won't like it very much being shut out. We don't need their stinking materials. We have enough right here including, oil, copper, aluminum, rare earths etc.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 101

That is completely impossible and illogical also.
 

post #66 of 101

No one missed you period!
 

post #67 of 101
Thread Starter 
Hmmm...seems quiet in this thread, despite the fact that we are about to attack Syria without UN or Congressional approval. Funny, I don't hear any liberals screaming about preemptive war, or LYING about WMD. I also don't see anyone noticing that my prediction contained within the title of this thread is now coming to fruition. Obama will be the cause of this. Had he simply made a convincing threat to attack if chemical weapons were used (or set a policy of staying out no matter what), we wouldn't be about to reign down Hell on them (probably to no avail, and perhaps at great risk of sparking a broader conflict).

Harrumph
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hmmm...seems quiet in this thread, despite the fact that we are about to attack Syria without UN or Congressional approval. Funny, I don't hear any liberals screaming about preemptive war, or LYING about WMD. I also don't see anyone noticing that my prediction contained within the title of this thread is now coming to fruition. Obama will be the cause of this. Had he simply made a convincing threat to attack if chemical weapons were used (or set a policy of staying out no matter what), we wouldn't be about to reign down Hell on them (probably to no avail, and perhaps at great risk of sparking a broader conflict).

Harrumph

 

Chemical weapons are a big "no no"... and people who use them are automatically assigned a status of "lower than child molester", pulling on the emotional response of the public. The big issue in Syria, isn't so much whether chemical weapons were used, but who has been using them?

 

The Obama Administration and its propaganda has been given carte blanche by the war-loving corporate media  - not forgetting that their parent companies tend to profit from war, so thats just the machinations of business in action - but is it a reflection of reality? 

 

The wikileaks dump of 2012 mentioned that a chemical attack would be used to frame the Syrian government, and used to justify war to effect regime change in that country. And here too, in UK-Qatar plot leak.

 

According to UN analysts, it is likely that it was the rebel forces that used chemical weapons in an attack in May, 2013. 

As reported here in the Turkish media, a nerve gas (sarin) weapon was captured from rebel forces.

Although Iran is allied to the Syrian regime, they have also claimed that the rebels used chemical weapons.

And as reported by Reuters...again, its the rebels with the chemical weapons

The rebels have also expressed the intent to use chemical weapons, as reported here in the Israeli press

Looks like Russia is in agreement as well with this assessment...

And here's a video, allegedly from Syrian rebels, discussing using sarin against targets

Notice the same language being used in the article from 6 months ago, when Israel entered the fray? 

 

Chemical weapon/WMD use tends to be the last resort of a weaker army, when all else has failed - for obvious reasons. The rebels are losing in Syria. The alleged recent attack happened very close to the capital Damascus...which seems a militarily illogical and absurd step for the Syrian army to have taken.

 

What do we have here? The Obama administration is quoting unnamed, single sourced information from some anonymous party somewhere in the intelligence community - and the corporate media are echoing this claim, without verification or backup, thus violating one of the most important rules of sound journalism.  This is almost an exact parallel to the previous administration's claims of WMDs in Iraq - which as we all know were bogus - anyone who attended the antiwar rallies could walk up to numerous tables and see the documents for themselves.

 

It looks like the Obama admin's claim is the outlier here. Baseless, factless....but its what most would prefer to believe... and appeal to the masses' comfort zone, or playing to their fears, sells a (desired/planned) war much more effectively than the truth and reality.

 

 

 

Talking of protest - where are all the conservatives? Here we have the liberal president (!!!), about to take the nation to war, or getting involved in military action at the least, based on dubious claims, or even outright lies. I haven't seen any evidence of single, solitary antiwar demonstration by angry conservatives against Obama's warmongering.... or is the expectation of mainstream Republicans rallying against war too absurd to contemplate? With the notable exception of Ron Paul libertarians, that is...

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #69 of 101

Why because you cannot face the fact that we have a BLACK PRESIDENT for the first time in history.
 

post #70 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Talking of protest - where are all the conservatives? Here we have the liberal president (!!!), about to take the nation to war, or getting involved in military action at the least, based on dubious claims, or even outright lies. I haven't seen any evidence of single, solitary antiwar demonstration by angry conservatives against Obama's warmongering.... or is the expectation of mainstream Republicans rallying against war too absurd to contemplate? With the notable exception of Ron Paul libertarians, that is...

 

I think the neo-conservative faction are on board because this is clearly an elite project. And those guys, like their liberal elite counterparts, are always on board for stuff like this. Libertarians are aghast at the prospect, strict economic conservatives will be drowned out by the YouTube videos and the conservative Christian wing is somewhat split over whether intervention could help or worsen the situation for middle eastern Christians and Israel.

 

My personal opinion is that I don't see why Assad's factions would have resorted to chem weapons use now, so I'm thinking the claims are dubious.

 

With regard to rallies, the Tea Party might be able to pull it off, but I think rank and file GOP members know that they are still wearing Iraq's debacle, and they will be savaged by the pro-Obama press if they were to take to the streets. They would be accused of not wanting to back Obama's war just because he's black.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #71 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why because you cannot face the fact that we have a BLACK PRESIDENT for the first time in history.
 

Oh jeez, not the race card again... 1rolleyes.gif Obama is clearly a weak, ineffectual, "go where the wind blows" president. He is not his own man, just like every president since 1963. Obama is yet another spokesperson for the ruling élite, and those who profit from war. The last real president this country had, despite all his faults and foibles, was JFK. He broke the rule, and paid for it.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #72 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

I think the neo-conservative faction are on board because this is clearly an elite project. And those guys, like their liberal elite counterparts, are always on board for stuff like this. Libertarians are aghast at the prospect, strict economic conservatives will be drowned out by the YouTube videos and the conservative Christian wing is somewhat split over whether intervention could help or worsen the situation for middle eastern Christians and Israel.

 

My personal opinion is that I don't see why Assad's factions would have resorted to chem weapons use now, so I'm thinking the claims are dubious.

 

With regard to rallies, the Tea Party might be able to pull it off, but I think rank and file GOP members know that they are still wearing Iraq's debacle, and they will be savaged by the pro-Obama press if they were to take to the streets. They would be accused of not wanting to back Obama's war just because he's black.

 

The illogical, "shoot yourself in the foot" aspect of this is glaring. Assad and the Syrian military for the most part clearly have had the upper hand over the rebel groups, yet Assad "chooses to use chemical weapons" - not only a militarily unnecessary move, but an insane one, knowing full well that this is a most convenient "catalyzing incident" for the US/neocon group which is after regime change in Syria. (!)

 

The claim that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons on Assad's orders implies that (Assad) is incompetent, stupid, or both. This is unlikely - Assad loves power, he is a ruthless thug and stupid people don't get to hold a position of power for 14 years.

 

One explanation re. chemical weapons use by the Syrian military is that a shell was loosed off by someone within the Syrian Army acting outside of orders.... Why? Who knows. If so, was a third party involved? It is also known that Syria does have chemical weapons (most nations do!), so maybe, perhaps, a chemical munition may have detonated on account of combat operations where it was stored?

 

I find it a *massive* stretch that Assad would hasten his own demise (and possibly, knowingly face a fate similar to that of Saddam Hussein) by playing directly into the hands of those who want his removal.

 

Bogus.. unless Assad, a privileged member of the Syrian élite, has some clandestine agreement with his "enemy".... and imho, that's a stretch as well.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #73 of 101

On the eve of unilateral action in violation of international law ... how's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?

post #74 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

On the eve of unilateral action in violation of international law ... how's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?

 

I was never expecting any 'hope' and 'change' from the current occupant. It is probable that he was given boundaries when his team moved into the White House - ie, you can do this, you can make modifications to that, but some things are off limits.

 

My previous entry regarding conservatives' attitude towards Obama's proposed venture was perhaps premature.... looks like there are a lot of people on the right of the political spectrum who are up in arms about this - and not just because its Obama who's going at it - this is about abuse of executive power and violating the Constitution. What's new folks?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #75 of 101

I know the media wasn't paying attention but the tea party started under Bush with the creation of the homeland security. So a lot of people "on the right" are motivated by principle and not the color of the president's skin.

post #76 of 101

OK, so I started Islam wATCH  and was attacked for it. A couple 0f people of mine have now given yup my friendship, well 1, and 2 muslims friends, who have shared everything with, are close friends. IT'S Strange, somewhat that the friend who i've lost, hated me for criticisizing Islam. bUT MY TWO muslim friends listened and respected me for my deeply held held love of jesus and honesty about islam.

I hope one day lwestern liberals are as tolerant  as loving as western muslims.

 

Peace... and be true to yourself.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #77 of 101
post #78 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why because you cannot face the fact that we have a BLACK PRESIDENT for the first time in history.
 

 

I see you've vomited into the thread again.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

I think the neo-conservative faction are on board because this is clearly an elite project. And those guys, like their liberal elite counterparts, are always on board for stuff like this. Libertarians are aghast at the prospect, strict economic conservatives will be drowned out by the YouTube videos and the conservative Christian wing is somewhat split over whether intervention could help or worsen the situation for middle eastern Christians and Israel.

 

My personal opinion is that I don't see why Assad's factions would have resorted to chem weapons use now, so I'm thinking the claims are dubious.

 

With regard to rallies, the Tea Party might be able to pull it off, but I think rank and file GOP members know that they are still wearing Iraq's debacle, and they will be savaged by the pro-Obama press if they were to take to the streets. They would be accused of not wanting to back Obama's war just because he's black.

 

 

Conservatives aren't really protesters in general, with the exception of the Tea Party wing.  As for chemical weapons, there are a lot of possibilities as to what happened.  I tend to believe that Assad did use chemical weapons, and that the admin knows this.  Of course, it could all be bullshit...but I'm placing that aside for a moment.  

 

My real problem is how the entire situation has been handled by the bumbling fool of a President we have.  There are two good ways this could have been handled, and he avoided both of them.  First, we could have taken the Libertarian approach and declared that we're staying the hell out of Syria no matter what they do to themselves.  That's a perfectly valid option, and I respect anyone who follows that thinking.  

 

The other way was for Obama to say that "we are the U.S., and we're simply not going to let you gas your own people.  If you do, we're not just going to attack..we're going to decimate your military to the point where you can't retaliate."   This would have been a credible, serious deterrent to Assad using chemical weapons.  Instead, Obama spoke of vague "red lines" and "game changers" and what not.  Then, the Leaker-in-Chief's people told us a "limited strike" was the plan with no intent to change the outcome of the civil war, and implied an attack was imminent.  Until Obama changed his mind after he took a walk with his bestie, Dennis McDonough.  He then held a super important news conference to tell everyone he had decided to take military action, but that he wanted to punt to Congress.  Given that there is a good chance that Congress is going to say no, he may well have weaseled his way out of the decision.  

 

Obama's handing of this is an absolute joke.  The man simply cannot make a decision, and yet he comes off as if he thinks he's a decisive, historic leader.  Never mind that the military strategy we're talking about is utterly stupid.  It will accomplish nothing from a policy standpoint.  It won't lead to Assad leaving power, even though Obama said "Assad must go" two years ago.  It won't stop him from killing his own people.  It may even spark a broader war.  If we're going to use force, we should take out Assad's ability to retaliate by destroying his air power and military facilities/equipment.   Not holding my breath, though.  At this point it would be better to do nothing.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #79 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Conservatives aren't really protesters in general, with the exception of the Tea Party wing.  As for chemical weapons, there are a lot of possibilities as to what happened.  I tend to believe that Assad did use chemical weapons, and that the admin knows this.  Of course, it could all be bullshit...but I'm placing that aside for a moment.  

 

My real problem is how the entire situation has been handled by the bumbling fool of a President we have.  There are two good ways this could have been handled, and he avoided both of them.  First, we could have taken the Libertarian approach and declared that we're staying the hell out of Syria no matter what they do to themselves.  That's a perfectly valid option, and I respect anyone who follows that thinking.  

 

The other way was for Obama to say that "we are the U.S., and we're simply not going to let you gas your own people.  If you do, we're not just going to attack..we're going to decimate your military to the point where you can't retaliate."   This would have been a credible, serious deterrent to Assad using chemical weapons.  Instead, Obama spoke of vague "red lines" and "game changers" and what not.  Then, the Leaker-in-Chief's people told us a "limited strike" was the plan with no intent to change the outcome of the civil war, and implied an attack was imminent.  Until Obama changed his mind after he took a walk with his bestie, Dennis McDonough.  He then held a super important news conference to tell everyone he had decided to take military action, but that he wanted to punt to Congress.  Given that there is a good chance that Congress is going to say no, he may well have weaseled his way out of the decision.  

 

Obama's handing of this is an absolute joke.  The man simply cannot make a decision, and yet he comes off as if he thinks he's a decisive, historic leader.  Never mind that the military strategy we're talking about is utterly stupid.  It will accomplish nothing from a policy standpoint.  It won't lead to Assad leaving power, even though Obama said "Assad must go" two years ago.  It won't stop him from killing his own people.  It may even spark a broader war.  If we're going to use force, we should take out Assad's ability to retaliate by destroying his air power and military facilities/equipment.   Not holding my breath, though.  At this point it would be better to do nothing.  

 

That's a pretty well rounded summary IMHO. I am skeptical however, that Assad would use chemical weapons, knowing that it would be the trigger for  Western (read US) military action against his regime. Assad is one of those guys who *enjoys* power - and I cannot acknowledge that he's oblivious to reality, and stupid enough to play directly into the hands of those who want regime change in Syria.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry recently has compared Assad to Hitler (!). That's quite a stretch, especially considering that Kerry and his wife were seen and photographed enjoying a cozy dinner with the Assads just 3 years ago. The picture looks legitimate... and it appears they were on good terms back then...what suddenly changed?

 

 

 

Chemical weapons were used in Syria, but Obama and crew have presented no proof re. whodunnit. It looks as if he's trying to do his "war president" bit.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #80 of 101
I am actually not too bothered by the waffling on Syria as I am with the lack of follow up on Benghazi. Syria should be left alone. We don't need to be involved there. Those who attacked American soil, on the other hand, needed to be turned into nice red smears the night of the attack. Unfortunately our leadership failed to act and has only invited further, bolder actions against us in the future.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Our President's Weakness & Incompetence Will Lead to War