"he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force "

No, I didn't. What I did was, I correctly repudiated your nonsensical claim that it was Bush's doing that the weapons inspectors were booted out of Iraq.

"Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

So when Bush invaded Iraq, there was no issue at hand? Saddam didn't repeatedly violate the terms that ended the first Gulf War, by repeatedly kicking the weapons inspector out? Spence, do you deny that Saddam did that? Or are you saying that kicking the weapons inspectors out, does not rise to the level of calling it "an issue"?

Which is it?

Jesus God Almnighty.

Bingo,guess you just can't expect anything different from O after being mentored all those years by the "God Damn America" Rev. Wright.

Obama's spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. His political mentor is Bill Ayers. His wife is Michelle (proud of the country for the first time in my life blah blah blah).

Any wonder why some question his love of the country? That skepticism is not rooted in racism, it's rooted in the company Obama chooses to keep.

What's the line on another chemical attack? I'm guessing the end of next week. The rebels are not happy with us right now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure why you guys insist on frustrating yourselves by asking him questions knowing that he, just like Barry and his administration simply make everything up to suit their needs and then act like anyone who doesn't believe their concocted facts is stupid, uneducated haters :smash:

It's called negotiation.

-spence

I said no such thing, what I did say was that point was the start of the real fiasco.

At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

This speaks volumes.

-spence

So it looks like diplomacy wins in the short term. Syria has to comply on a very accelerated pace with UN oversight and Russia isn't faced with an immediate veto dilemma unless their little friend decides to cheat in which case it goes before the security council.

Very good chance we'll be able to rid the world of a huge WMD stockpile. Israel must be loving this...

-spence

go easy solocirclejerk.....

"The agreement will be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution (we know how well these work) that could allow for sanctions (oh no, not the dreaded and ineffective "could sanctions") or other consequences (baaaaa haaa haaa) if Syria fails to comply, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said (need to consider the source:uhuh:).

Kerry said that the first international inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November (oh good, that gives them lots of time), with destruction to begin next year (like the Keystone Pipeline).

Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.

The Russians had made clear in talks here between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kerry that the negotiations could not proceed under the threat of a U.N. resolution authorizing a military strike. Russia also wanted assurances that a resolution would not refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for possible war-crimes prosecution. (but isn't he guilty?)

President Obama has said that the unilateral U.S. use of force against Syria for a chemical attack last month remains on the table. (he says a lot of things) But consideration of that action, already under challenge by a skeptical Congress, has been put on hold pending the outcome of the Geneva talks. (oh, boo...(you know he wanted to pick some targets over lunch and blow some #^&#^&#^&#^& up)

The discussions here began this week following a Russian proposal Monday, quickly agreed to by Assad, to place Syria’s chemical arsenal under international control and eventually destroy it.

Kerry and Lavrov, negotiating behind closed doors with teams of disarmament experts, have said little about the talks that began Thursday. But administration officials in Washington provided some details on the condition that they not be identified or quoted directly. (yeah, I'd like a second opinion)

The officials insisted that any agreement must be verifiable and include consequences for non-compliance. Short of a threatened use of force, it is not clear what those consequences would be. (tickle torture with an ostrich feather most likely)



good grief.....

hey Spence, you do know that Putin announced he's sending missiles and building a reactor in Iran....that the US and Israel vehemently opposed a couple of years ago...Israel must be thrilled!

"At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody"

Spence, no one said Saddam was gassing somebody...see if you can go two seconds without moving the goalposts, shall we?

you said that unlike what Bush 43 faced with Iraq, Obama has a real issue with Syria. Meaning, there was no issue in Iraq. No issue. The fact that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the UN peace treaty, to you, was not an issue to be addressed. Your words, not anyone else's.

"Bush was acting on a perceived threat."

Oh, Bush did it unilaterally? He didn't get formal support from the US Senate, including Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer, et al? All those conservative neocons?

Lots of people that are considered heroes by the left, were every bit as certain as Bush, that Iraq had WMDs.

Wow, that's pathetic.

-spence

You're just talking now, trying to find things to object to.

-spence

Isn't destroying Assad's stuff a preventative action? Aren't Assad's weapons a perceived threat?

Do you perceive chemical weapons to be a greater threat than radical, jihadist Islam?

WMD have been owned by nations for more than 60 years. Doesn't it depend on the rational makeup of the owners more than the weapons? Isn't the ideology and conviction of the owners the far greater threat than the weapons?

If so, why do we support and supply the "rebels" who will most likely be co-opted by jihadist types whose ideology and conviction is world domination, not merely domination of a state? Do we really think that Assad would use his weapons against us if we left him alone? Do we think he has a mission to bring down the evil West?

Why are we so willing to use force against a local tyrant, but support those who wish to destroy us? I don't know if it is possible to rid the world of chemical weapons if the ability to produce them exists. I would rather rid us of those who wish us harm and destruction by any means possible, chemical or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw

go easy solocirclejerk.....


fixed it for you, I agree that your constant use of the term is a little childish but I was inspired after reading over the little orgasm post you were having and the crazy conclusions that you were coming to based on very little....:rotf2:

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.

No, you're just hearing what you want to hear, that's why is sounds like nonsense.

-spence

this is pretty funny....

"United Nations Security Council resolution 678, adopted on 29 November 1990, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677 (all 1990), the Council noted that despite all the United Nations efforts, Iraq continued to defy the Security Council

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments........


"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach."


Iraq didn't really rise to the level of being an issue and the threat was "perceived" ? Spence should have notified the UN and they could have saved all of that time pounding out all of these resolutions and threats of consequences for nothing......But now Syria....there's s SERIOUS threat from a tiny country :rotf2:

You're conflating a lot of mumble here.

The threat perceived from Iraq wasn't that he had defied his obligations, it was that he would give WMD to alQaeda.

-spence

OK. So now, you are denying that you said the events leading up to the second Gulf War didn't rise to the level of being called an "active issue"

here is an exact quote.

"The regret is because like many they (those dealing with Saddam) were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

You say here that there was no active issue. You also say that the war was launched by a few with an agenda.

Spence, read the Senate vote on authorizing the use of force. Those in favor included the current Vice President, as well as senators Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Edwards, all those neocons. You're saying they all had an agenda?

What was Joe Biden's agenda, Spence? Enlighten me. What was Senator Clinton's agenda, and Senator Kerry?

Iraq's status (from bad to critical) was elevated because those in power at the time had an agenda. I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation.

-spence

"I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation."

If that's true, it wasn't just the administration Spence. You must necessarily concede, then, that most of the Democrats in the Senate also had that same fixation, and many of those democrats are in the current administration. Shouldn't that frighten you? If senators Biden, Kerry and Clinton all agreed to war because of some irrational fixation, do they belong in the positions of VP and Secstate? Good luck! Let's see how you move the goalposts on this one!

also Spence, do you agree that Saddam repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors? And that was in violation of the terms that ended the first war? What would you have done with that fact? Nothing? The US-led coalition gave him all kinds of chances to comply with the weapons inspectors, and there would have been no war had he agreed to the treaty that he signed.

Bush's and the UN's red lines were clear to the world . They didn't go to save face or to back up tough talk. The reason Bush had support was because he had credibility and a incredible talented cabinet .
Not so much this time around .
I'm thinking the negotiations are coming along much like Obamas try at securing the Olympics for the US
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, after 9/11 I thought the same thing. Thank god we have that team in place...

Makes it even more astounding that they got nearly everything wrong.

-spence

Help me out here Spence. How many attacks after 9/11 on their watch ?
Nearly everything ??? How's Obama doing?? His records a little worse I think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe there were 11 attacks under Bush's watch after 9/11 to US consulates, embassies and places where Americans congregate.

Funny, you didn't hear about most or any of these from the evil liberal media or Democrats trying to make air time. Yet, on 9/11 just last week you had republicans still out beating the Benghazi drum. It's shameful...

-spence

we've listed them before, no Americans died, no lies were told by the administration and they were not the result of incompetence from the administration...you get dumber by the post :uhuh:

I think Scott covered this quite well .
Amazing you found nothing shameful about the way this Administration handled Benghazi .
You're just getting annoying at this point. I keep waiting for you to say you were just kidding around for the last 5 years. A 5 year practical joke would be amusing :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously Scott, you should think before you post. You're wrong of course, and the ad hominem stuff is just juvenile.

-spence

Btw I just gave you a way to save face Spence. I would take the cue from your dear leader and run with it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just like it when you post. Seeing Reagan and knowing that you don't agree with so much that he stood for makes me happy.

-spence

Really ? Coming from somebody with an abstruse view of reality, that's funny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, the Bush administration was wrong about WMDs. How come you won't talk about the fact. that many prominent liberals were equally wrong. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Senators Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer. Does it concern you that many in the present administration (Biden, Clinton, Kerry) were every bit as wrong? Or are Republicans the only ones who can be labeled as incompetent for being wrong about Iraq?

Ok you peaked my curiosity ! What did Reagan stand for that you think I oppose? A strong military, tax cuts to promote growth , against socialized health care, that people were better off with investing there own $$ instead of SS, pro life, capital punishment , against the dept of education , pro free market ????
Help me out here.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

been through this..the usual revisionist tripe....you are enabling him to change the subject, spout even more bs and sound like an even bigger dope...oooooh...on third thought...go right ahead :uhuh:

pretty good article on the toothlessness of this agreement...

"Odds are that in agreeing to sign the CWC, Assad knew he was enrolling in a treaty that is cumbersome to apply and easy to manipulate. Indeed, U.S. authorities believe that Russia, now proposing to help rid Assad of his chemical weapons, has itself been cheating on the chemical-weapons treaty. According to the State Department’s 2013 report to Congress on compliance with the CWC, “the United States assesses that Russia’s CWC declaration is incomplete with respect to chemical agent and stockpiles.”



http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...claudia-rosett

I'm not sure about the Gas itself. I keep reading it's not the first attack but the 3rd or 4th by both sides.
There is no doubt in my mind that the rush Kerry and Obama were in to bomb, which completely contradicted there previous stances on war, makes me question the motivation. It was worse though to watch those 2 paint themselves right into a corner and Putin shut the door.




http://www.infowars.com/us-military-...tack-in-syria/

This presidency has been an epic failure, for the same reasons that I would be a failure if I was hired to be chief engineer at a nuclear reactor. Obama does not understand this country, its history, how it works, or most importantly, why it does what it does. And to be fair, how can he? Examine his associations. Everything he thinks he knows about America he "learned" at the feet of Marxist gasbags at Harvard or in the faculty lounge at the University of Chicago (infested by other Marxist gasbags who were educated at Harvard) or by his political cronies in the Democrat establishment (who are all Marxist gasbags who were educated at Harvard).

Irag did have WMD's ...if U call the gassing of about 5,000 Kurds, men, women and children in one village just a coincidence then I do not know what WMD are.....the problem is we gave Irag time to remove them.

http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Re...to-Iraq-326141

uh..oh...

they should send in Iranian inspectors, Jimmy Carter and Dennis Rodman immediately to get control of this situation

Here is what our president said in his Syrian speech...

"With modest risk and effort, we can [resolve the crisis, in essence]. That is what makes America exceptional. That is what makes us unique."

Obama is saying that what makes America exceptional, is our willingness to undertake "modest risk and effort" on behalf of those who are suffering. MODEST risk and effort?

Those teenagers who stormed the beaches of Normandy, were only taking a modest risk? The hundreds of thousands of union soldiers who died during the Civil War...only took a "modest" risk to try to free the slaves? The kids who stormed the beaches at Tarawa and Iwo Jima, only were asked to make a "modest" effort? The firemen and cops who ran INTO the burning buildings on 09/11, their sacrifices were merely "modest".

This is what you get from a guy who spends his life (1) in academia, and then (2) engaging in racial, divisive politics.

I cannot imagine the last time a president said something so stupid, inaccurate, offensive, and demonstrably false. To Obama, "real" effort is what kids do at Harvard, while the teenager on Seal Team 6 kicking down doors in Fallujah is only making a "modest" effort.

He's such a jerk.

.