House of Commons says

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.

It doesn't appear that neither of the previous World Wars benefited anyone, but they happened anyway because of, among other things, escalating local and national disputes. Wasn't one of the reasons not to respond "irrationally" to various radical Islamic provocations exactly to avoid inflaming what the radicals wanted--a major worldwide jihad against the West and the infidels?

The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?
-spence

Apparently, the "international community" is divided on many, many issues. Various nations within that "community" have stockpiles of such weapons. Not sure of why this international community would produce and stock stuff that it doesn't allow the use of.

And this "community" seems often to be paralyzed against "doing" something because, it seems, it usually contradicts itself. It really appears to be a house divided against itself, a rather rickety, crumbling house. Within such a "community" the cost of doing nothing, in the end, is not much different than doing "something."

The difference, when the dust settles, temporarily, is who gets what. Who is getting what in the dispute between tyrants and jihadists might make a difference to the U.S., but the tyrants may be more to our benefit than the others. And if it were really for the liberation of individuals from the oppression of a dictatorial State, and from the tyranny of an intolerant religion, it might be beneficial for us to actually fight for that liberation rather than merely send a message. Even unilaterally. But the Arab Spring, so far, doesn't indicate such liberation.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.

The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?

-spence

Fear mongering and not likely?????
If you really think that, you have your head in the sand.
Iran would use any excuse for attacking Israel preemptively before Israel could
destroy their growing nuclear program. You don't think Israel would hesitate to
use nuclear weapons if attacked with chemical weapons? Once nuclear weapons are in play, it's any body's guess. Your not dealing with rational people here but with a myriad of countries with different agendas.
As stated before, NO ONE knows what the outcome of either attacking or not attacking would lead to. O got us into this mess with his pre election rhetoric.

BTW, please explain what O's red line is when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons in the very near future and what will he do. Hope he has built up a coalition and has a plan. Not likely.
Spence, this is not like Clinton sending a missile into an abandoned aspirin factory.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Iran would use any excuse for attacking Israel preemptively before Israel could destroy their growing nuclear program.

I think there's zero chance Iran makes a pre-emptive strike on Israel. They are fully aware Tehran would be vaporized in an hour. Iran has no where to hide.

Your not dealing with rational people here but with a myriad of countries with different agendas.

And for all of them the number one agenda item is staying in power.

This is pretty much the Syria story as well. Assad recognized he need to start showing some reforms as the Arab Spring heated up and had a new administration willing to talk...but the resistance was more than he gambled on and escalated quickly into a full on civil war.

As stated before, NO ONE knows what the outcome of either attacking or not attacking would lead to. O got us into this mess with his pre election rhetoric.

That's nonsense, it would be a messy situation no matter what.

BTW, please explain what O's red line is when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons in the very near future and what will he do. Hope he has built up a coalition and has a plan. Not likely.
Spence, this is not like Clinton sending a missile into an abandoned aspirin factory.

Iran will get a nuke regardless of any red line...even Israel can't stop them now...the bigger question is if that's a show stopper. Remember, that regime doesn't want to lose power as well.

-spence

[Nebe]

LOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[FormerUser]

Originally Posted by Nebe

LOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ROFLMAO is more like it.

I've never been more afraid of things to come.Obama and his supporters (sorry buckman this includes the mainstream GOP) are about to do something really stupid for which America and the west in general really don't need to be involved in.

Both sides have complete and total hatred of America,hell they can't even decide if they like themselves as inter-tribal warfare has been going on for a thousand+ years over who's the successor to muhammad.

As harsh as it may sound...LET THESE PEOPLE KILL ONE ANOTHER,its a win-win situation for the world.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by basswipe

ROFLMAO is more like it.

I've never been more afraid of things to come.Obama and his supporters (sorry buckman this includes the mainstream GOP) are about to do something really stupid for which America and the west in general really don't need to be involved in.

Both sides have complete and total hatred of America,hell they can't even decide if they like themselves as inter-tribal warfare has been going on for a thousand+ years over who's the successor to muhammad.

As harsh as it may sound...LET THESE PEOPLE KILL ONE ANOTHER,its a win-win situation for the world.

I agree. As Sarah Palin said "let Allah sort it out"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by basswipe

I've never been more afraid of things to come.

No need for us to be afraid of things to come, the new buzz word for those
favoring a strike is "fear mongering". Like a few words will do away with all the
unknowns of getting involved in a tinderbox of crazies.

I wonder what the O sheepels would be saying if this mess was caused by a Bush
red line ????
LOL

[buckman]

Backing the uprising in Iran sure looks like it might have been a good move .
Since this is all about credibility, won't that all change with a new President? I thought that's what happened when Bush left?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

The number one tool that governments use to strengthen their power hold on their country is fear. All this stuff is is fear mongering to get the people of this world to give in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Reuters- Russia sending a missile cruiser into the Mediteranian
to be joined by a destroyer and frigate.
No problem here, they say they don't want to get involved in a conflict in Syria.
We should feel much better now. Just a scare tactic, nothing could escalate.

[Nebe]

Fearmongering
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

As unAmercan as this sounds, at this point I trust Russian intelligence more then our own . They believe the rebels released the gas.
Let's not forget , The Boston bombing wouldn't have happened if the Russians were in charge .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by buckman

As unAmercan as this sounds, at this point I trust Russian intelligence more then our own . They believe the rebels released the gas.
Let's not forget , The Boston bombing wouldn't have happened if the Russians were in charge .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As unamerican as this sounds, I'd rather have a beer with Putin than Obama. (Although I'd leave my Super Bowl ring at home if i had one). Putin has more street smarts than Obama and seems to have a plan for everything he does. Putin could out smart Obama one on one. The dude has Moxie.......even though he is a commie bastard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by buckman

As unAmercan as this sounds, at this point I trust Russian intelligence more then our own . They believe the rebels released the gas.
Let's not forget , The Boston bombing wouldn't have happened if the Russians were in charge .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The same way we flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Weren't the Tsarnaev's from Russia?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

The same way we flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Weren't the Tsarnaev's from Russia?

Let's not get stupid here
The Russians warned us not once but twice about the Tsarnauv's
That's a known fact .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Oh I don't know Buck, look how fast and accurate the WH came up with the
intelligence report on how "the tape" was the reason for the uprising in Libiya
and the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Oh I don't know Buck, look how fast and accurate the WH came up with the
intelligence report on how "the tape" was the reason for the uprising in Libiya
and the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

Not true ! They said it was terrorism from day one . LMAO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by buckman

Let's not get stupid here
The Russians warned us not once but twice about the Tsarnauv's
That's a known fact .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is also well known the Chechens got the Russians with their pants down.
definition of oxymoron;
military intelligence....

Call me naive,but I will be very surprised if the rebels gassed themselves to get our help. It is this type of conspiracy theory that I put in the WTC category.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

It is also well known the Chechens got the Russians with their pants down.
definition of oxymoron;
military intelligence....

Call me naive,but I will be very surprised if the rebels gassed themselves to get our help. It is this type of conspiracy theory that I put in the WTC category.

One is plausible and maybe even likely
How many do we kill with missles to teach him not to kill with gas ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

I do have to give credit where credit is due. The President does appear to have united republicans and democrats across this nation . Just about everyone is against starting another war
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

The horrible irony here is that many people who hate obama and always support Bush's policies are against this Syria conflict at all costs and site reasoning that debunks their defense of bush going into Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The horrible irony here is that many people who hate obama and always support Bush's policies are against this Syria conflict at all costs and site reasoning that debunks their defense of bush going into Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fabricated hatred for Obama has far surpassed what the Left feigned for Bush.

I fear that the majority of opposition is rooted in partisan circlejerkery rather than pragmatism and the sheep are just chortling along with their eyes closed.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

.

rooted in partisan circlejerkery rather than pragmatism and the sheep are just chortling along with their eyes closed.

-spence

I think you just described yourself quite well

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think you just described yourself quite well

You forgot the chortle.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You forgot the chortle.

-spence

..zzzzzzzzzzzzzz'...same song ...different day..."hate"...blah blah..."partisan"....blah blah..."circlejerk"....blah blah..."not thinking"...blah blah

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The fabricated hatred for Obama has far surpassed what the Left feigned for Bush.

I fear that the majority of opposition is rooted in partisan circlejerkery rather than pragmatism and the sheep are just chortling along with their eyes closed.

-spence

You forgot racism as a reason and an explanation for all the democrats that are opposed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

many people who hate obama and always support Bush's policies .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

name one

[spence]

Interesting your use of quotes in an attempt to mislead.

-spence

[justplugit]

In all honesty Spence, if Bush was President now, and wanted to go into Syria for the same reasons as O, what would you be saying?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

In all honesty Spence, if Bush was President now, and wanted to go into Syria for the same reasons as O, what would you be saying?

he's gonna really struggle with those first four words

like this...

When asked this morning if the U.S. has any pledges of military support for strikes in Syria, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough emphasized that the G20 and other nations have made supportive condemnations of the Syrian government’s actions, but when repeatedly pressed by CNN’s Candy Crowley, he provided no examples of countries that have endorsed or will provide personnel or equipment for a military intervention.

He wouldn’t explicitly admit that the U.S. has no allies willing to provide support, saying, “You’re trying to get me to say that, but I’m not going to say it.” There is specific support from the EU and others, he said, for “holding Syria accountable.”


say it....SAY IT!......nope

"sophistry"....like the use of those quotes Spence?


http://www.latimes.com/world/worldno...,4466835.story

"As administration officials lay out their case in favor of a punitive attack on Syria, they have been making all of these seemingly contradictory contentions, confusing supporters and providing rhetorical weapons to their opponents.""


"The sometimes-tortured quality of the argument was apparent over the weekend as some officials claimed that the strikes would shift the momentum of the Syrian war, and others said it would largely be unchanged."

read the article. The administration peacocks are far more interested in preserving and maintaining their "appearance" than they are about doing anything meaningful...and everyone knows it