Good idea or bad idea? Necessary or unnecessary?
Obviously, diplomatic channels are as useless as tits on a bull.
The Syrian regime murdered 1300+ unarmed citizens via the use of chemical warfare; a weapon strictly prohibited by the international community.
We've got warships strategically positioned to drop a vast array of cruise missiles on high value targets; specifically their aircraft.
However, I say we under NO circumstances drop the hammer without an iron clad agreement from the international community, and with their commitment to provide weapons and troops in a sufficient quantity and quality with which to follow up with a ground assault designed to restore order and enforce compliance with international and humanitarian law.
The problem I have with intervention is that there isn't really a good side in that little war. The regime is associated with Hezbollah and the insurgents are associated with al-Qaida. Outside of the loss of innocent civilians, the best bet would be for those two sides to beat each other into oblivion.
Quote from: Locutus on August 27, 2013, 08:17:42 PM
The problem I have with intervention is that there isn't really a good side in that little war. The regime is associated with Hezbollah and the insurgents are associated with al-Qaida. Outside of the loss of innocent civilians, the best bet would be for those two sides to beat each other into oblivion.
I've not seen anything that demonstrated an alignment between the rebel forces and Al Qaeda; just information that outlines the different sects of Muslim religions that comprise the rebel forces.
I do however, suspect an end run being implemented on the White House surrounding this civil war. It just seems like deja vu with the proportionately growing "intelligence" information surrounding the regime's use of chemical weapons against it citizens. It smacks of the same tripe we were fed to start the Iraqi war. . .
I could be wrong. But the sour taste that left in my mouth has made me highly suspicious of the intelligence community and its motivations. I just hope the POTUS will demand proof and receive it before he makes a decision like this. Especially if that decision includes the commitment of our men and women toward a ground force.
There have been al-Qaida fighters who have been streaming into that country to help the insurgents and the resistance has been supported by that organization thus far.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/
I don't think they're thinking about ground forces. I would be strongly opposed to that, and I'm moderately opposed to anything being done at all.
And you're right about the intelligence. It better be pretty rock solid before anything is done.
Wonder where they got their chemical weapons they used. :think:
Quote from: me on August 27, 2013, 09:04:50 PM
Wonder where they got their chemical weapons they used. :think:
If you're going to imply (and you are :wink:) that they came from Saddam Hussein, I would like for you to explain to me why he would have given chemical weapons to the Syrians, some of which (including Bashar al-Assad) just happen to be minority Shiites, and ergo best buddies with his arch enemy Iran. Doesn't make any sense.
What do you think about Syria HH?
Quote from: Locutus on August 28, 2013, 11:30:52 AM
What do you think about Syria HH?
Just kind of waiting to see how the media and the WH plays this out. IMO, Obama drew the red line back in April, stating...."We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists."
Now, China drew a line in the sand.....
Do we support Al Qaeda? The folks who attacked us on 9/11?
I think, and I know I will be attacked and called names, but THIS, folks, is where a lack of leadership and somebody who NEVER should have been elected to be in this position.....has put us in a REAL predicament.
I'm just waiting to see what happens...and how we approach this. I would not want to be in the WH now.
Quote from: Locutus on August 27, 2013, 10:07:34 PM
If you're going to imply (and you are :wink:) that they came from Saddam Hussein, I would like for you to explain to me why he would have given chemical weapons to the Syrians, some of which (including Bashar al-Assad) just happen to be minority Shiites, and ergo best buddies with his arch enemy Iran. Doesn't make any sense.
Does anything she posts ever make any sense?
Quote from: Bo D on August 28, 2013, 01:22:11 PM
Does anything she posts ever make any sense?
Negative! :big grin:
Quote from: Bo D on August 28, 2013, 01:22:11 PM
Does anything she posts ever make any sense?
Hey, I asked a perfectly valid question. No one seemed to notice any being made and rumor had it that it was trucked to Syria to get it out of Dodge when things got hot a few years ago. They either had to make it or already have it is all I'm saying. Is no one allowed to question things anymore?
Quote from: me on August 28, 2013, 03:19:13 PM
Hey, I asked a perfectly valid question. No one seemed to notice any being made and rumor had it that it was trucked to Syria to get it out of Dodge when things got hot a few years ago. They either had to make it or already have it is all I'm saying. Is no one allowed to question things anymore?
What's the key word in the above post that permeates just about your every post along these lines?
Quote from: Locutus on August 27, 2013, 10:07:34 PM
If you're going to imply (and you are :wink:) that they came from Saddam Hussein, I would like for you to explain to me why he would have given chemical weapons to the Syrians, some of which (including Bashar al-Assad) just happen to be minority Shiites, and ergo best buddies with his arch enemy Iran. Doesn't make any sense.
^^ :wink:
For what it is worth, here is an article written in 2006....
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/qid=1138293088/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9365920-2992826?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 28, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
For what it is worth, here is an article written in 2006....
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/qid=1138293088/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9365920-2992826?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/)
But HH that can't possibly be true since that would make Bush right and you know that ain't gonna happen. :wink:
Quote from: Locutus on August 28, 2013, 03:28:07 PM
What's the key word in the above post that permeates just about your every post along these lines?
The word "rumor" was used figuratively there.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 28, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
For what it is worth, here is an article written in 2006....
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/qid=1138293088/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9365920-2992826?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," qMr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/)
All while there was a no-fly zone in the south, and a no-fly zone in the north, and with the U.S. military watching absolutely every single move Hussein made at that time? C'mon! That defies logic.
Quote from: Locutus on August 27, 2013, 10:07:34 PM
If you're going to imply (and you are :wink:) that they came from Saddam Hussein, I would like for you to explain to me why he would have given chemical weapons to the Syrians, some of which (including Bashar al-Assad) just happen to be minority Shiites, and ergo best buddies with his arch enemy Iran. Doesn't make any sense.
Either of you are free to address the above. I'm still waiting.
Quote from: me on August 28, 2013, 03:43:43 PM
The word "rumor" was used figuratively there.
Right. :wink:
That seems to be all you ever post. Rumors and innuendo copied from your inbox.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 28, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
For what it is worth, here is an article written in 2006....
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/qid=1138293088/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9365920-2992826?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/)
So if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, did he move them to Syria so that he could save them for something bigger than a full scale invasion of his country by an overwhelming force? Do you ever stop to actually think about how ridiculous something you're about to post may sound before you post it?
Quote from: Locutus on August 28, 2013, 04:21:23 PM
All while there was a no-fly zone in the south, and a no-fly zone in the north, and with the U.S. military watching absolutely every single move Hussein made at that time? C'mon! That defies logic.
Do you not remember the elaborate tunnels that were found and never fully explored? Do you not remember seeing trucks heading to Syria? Of course you don't 'cause it doesn't fit your programming.
Although a rehashing of the Iraq war wasn't the intent of this thread, there are two cogent points that have yet to be addressed.
1.
Quote from: Locutus on August 27, 2013, 10:07:34 PM
If you're going to imply (and you are :wink:) that they came from Saddam Hussein, I would like for you to explain to me why he would have given chemical weapons to the Syrians, some of which (including Bashar al-Assad) just happen to be minority Shiites, and ergo best buddies with his arch enemy Iran. Doesn't make any sense.
2.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 28, 2013, 04:34:06 PM
So if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, did he move them to Syria so that he could save them for something bigger than a full scale invasion of his country by an overwhelming force? Do you ever stop to actually think about how ridiculous something you're about to post may sound before you post it?
So I'm still awaiting an answer.
1. If Hussein had the desire and did dispose of the weapons, why give them to an ally of the Iranians?
2. As Ex pointed out, he was faced with an invasion of his country by an overwhelming force. Why would he dump something that would be a logical deterrent to that invasion, especially by giving them to an ally of his staunchest enemy?
Please address those points.
Quote from: me on August 28, 2013, 04:44:43 PM
Do you not remember the elaborate tunnels that were found and never fully explored? Do you not remember seeing trucks heading to Syria? Of course you don't 'cause it doesn't fit your programming.
So the U.S. military let trucks containing chemical weapons cross the border into Syria unnoticed? That doesn't make any sense and defies logic as do the other two points stated above.
Furthermore, the following is a quote from Jay Carney.
"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to, threat to, the United States' national security."
As Palehorse duly noted in the second post on this thread, this sounds amazingly like the drums that were being beaten prior to the Iraq war.
How is the use of those weapons in Syria a challenge to, or a threat to, the national security of this country?
Do you two Bobbsey Twins see the difference here in how we think as opposed to how you think? I'm raising almost the exact same questions of the Obama administration in this regard as I asked of the Bush administration prior to Iraq. There's a difference between critical thinking and posting bullshit that shows up on World Nut Daily or happens to land in your inbox. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on August 28, 2013, 05:44:47 PM
Furthermore, the following is a quote from Jay Carney.
"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to, threat to, the United States' national security."
As Palehorse duly noted in the second post on this thread, this sounds amazingly like the drums that were being beaten prior to the Iraq war.
How is the use of those weapons in Syria a challenge to, or a threat to, the national security of this country?
Do you two Bobbsey Twins see the difference here in how we think as opposed to how you think? I'm raising almost the exact same questions of the Obama administration in this regard as I asked of the Bush administration prior to Iraq. There's a difference between critical thinking and posting bullshit that shows up on World Nut Daily or happens to land in your inbox. :rolleyes:
You're probably right since our borders to the south are so secure and nothing can be sneaked in via that route. Besides, what do they have against us anyway? Ya, it's silly to worry about those people.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 28, 2013, 04:34:06 PM
So if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, did he move them to Syria so that he could save them for something bigger than a full scale invasion of his country by an overwhelming force? Do you ever stop to actually think about how ridiculous something you're about to post may sound before you post it?
First of all, I am not stating that there IS any proof, just posting what somebody who was in a position TO know stated. I think it is interesting.
Secondly Saddam was a nutjob, and who knows what his plans were.........so if getting them out of his country was his best option to hide them, then why not? It is amazing that nearly ALL of our congress including Clinton SAID, without a doubt that Saddam DID have WMD's...there was NO mistake, he HAD them. If that is true, then where did they go?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 29, 2013, 08:00:50 AM
First of all, I am not stating that there IS any proof, just posting what somebody who was in a position TO know stated. I think it is interesting.
Secondly Saddam was a nutjob, and who knows what his plans were.........so if getting them out of his country was his best option to hide them, then why not? It is amazing that nearly ALL of our congress including Clinton SAID, without a doubt that Saddam DID have WMD's...there was NO mistake, he HAD them. If that is true, then where did they go?
This has all previously been discussed here and all of these questions answered. The question that hasn't been answered is, "do you ever stop to actually think about how ridiculous something you're about to post may sound before you post it?"
Quote from: Exterminator on August 29, 2013, 09:15:53 AM
This has all previously been discussed here and all of these questions answered. The question that hasn't been answered is, "do you ever stop to actually think about how ridiculous something you're about to post may sound before you post it?"
uh....Bullshit!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 29, 2013, 11:07:10 AM
uh....Bullshit!
Now, isn't just typing the word a lot easier than typing several sentences that amount to nothing more anyway?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 29, 2013, 08:00:50 AM
First of all, I am not stating that there IS any proof, just posting what somebody who was in a position TO know stated. I think it is interesting.
Secondly Saddam was a nutjob, and who knows what his plans were.........so if getting them out of his country was his best option to hide them, then why not? It is amazing that nearly ALL of our congress including Clinton SAID, without a doubt that Saddam DID have WMD's...there was NO mistake, he HAD them. If that is true, then where did they go?
If you'll see the posts above, even if he had them and was inclined to move them out of the country, there's virtually ZERO percent chance they would have gone to Syria.
Have you looked at the news this morning? The Iranians are saying that Israel will go up in flames if the US attacks Syria. Why pray tell would they say that? Well, that's because they're Syria's
ally. Now if you'll remember history for a bit, Iraq used mustard gas and nerve gas on the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.
Are you and 'me' even remotely suggesting that he would have slipped chemical weapons into Syria, who may have in turn given them to the Iranians, who may in turn have used them on him? As I said before, that's simply beyond ridiculous.
Now here's an even bigger issue:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.
...
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
Full Article (http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk-070731192.html)
^^ If that's indeed the case, this is looking less and less like a good idea.
Quote from: me on August 28, 2013, 06:00:30 PM
You're probably right since our borders to the south are so secure and nothing can be sneaked in via that route. Besides, what do they have against us anyway? Ya, it's silly to worry about those people.
Border security is a completely different story. In case you're unaware, any American military strikes aren't going to target those chemical weapons anyway for the reasons stated in the article I just posted. So we're not trying to get rid of them.
So that clearly fails to answer this question which some of the Republicans are beginning to ask, including John Boehner.
The letter, which was sent Wednesday afternoon, urges Obama to "make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America's credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy."So if he doesn't know, and I don't know, I'm quite certain that you don't have a clue either.
Again, how is the use of those weapons in Syria a challenge to, or a threat to, the national security of this country?
Quote from: Locutus on August 29, 2013, 11:16:17 AM
Are you and 'me' even remotely suggesting that he would have slipped chemical weapons into Syria, who may have in turn given them to the Iranians, who may in turn have used them on him? As I said before, that's simply beyond ridiculous.
No fair using logic.
And, the Brits are fanning the flames of war with their "intelligence" much as they did with Iraq.
This is awful familiar, and I hope this POTUS doesn't fall into their trap!
Seriously? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/29/216739517/obama-hasnt-made-case-for-striking-syria-rumsfeld-says?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130829)
And I see Rummy is spewing again. I expect that the Brits will launch first, Syria will blame the US, and Iran will pound Israel in order to bait us into the mess. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on August 29, 2013, 12:26:59 PM
And I see Rummy is spewing again. I expect that the Brits will launch first, Syria will blame the US, and Iran will pound Israel in order to bait us into the mess. . .
If Iran makes a move against Israel, Israel will nuke them without blinking an eye.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 29, 2013, 12:25:47 PM
Seriously? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/29/216739517/obama-hasnt-made-case-for-striking-syria-rumsfeld-says?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130829)
Un-fucking-believable! :mad:
Well the British are out. Parliament says no.
Quote from: Locutus on August 29, 2013, 06:10:18 PM
Well the British are out. Parliament says no.
. . .Until the UN inspectors come out of there with "evidence" supporting that Syria and its regime used chemical weapons and then attempted to pin it on the rebel forces. . .
Quote from: Exterminator on August 29, 2013, 12:40:55 PM
If Iran makes a move against Israel, Israel will nuke them without blinking an eye.
Perhaps. . . but given that, the Xtians will begin end of days and the emotional uproar will collapse the world as we know it today. . . Anarchy will rule and the conservative blood will pool. . .
:spooked: :pope:
This is a good read. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/)
Quote from: Exterminator on August 30, 2013, 03:22:21 PM
This is a good read. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/)
That is indeed a good read! Thanks for posting it. I'm way behind in my reading -- have stacks of the Washington Post paper edition yet to read --
Obama's stock just went up big time with this speech. I am okay with the approach he laid out. He's going to seek Congressional approval prior to giving the order for force.
Quote from: Locutus on August 31, 2013, 01:58:17 PM
Obama's stock just went up big time with this speech. I am okay with the approach he laid out. He's going to seek Congressional approval prior to giving the order for force.
Yep! Put the ball in their court.
Quote from: Locutus on August 31, 2013, 01:58:17 PM
Obama's stock just went up big time with this speech. I am okay with the approach he laid out. He's going to seek Congressional approval prior to giving the order for force.
Yep. By the time congress is done debating and arguing, Syria will have imposed even worse atrocities upon its citizens and another entity will be taking them to task. . .
What other choice has he got? He boxed himself into a corner with drawing the line in the sand last year....I think he is doing the right thing.... NOW. But he should have never spouted his mouth off last year.
He has himself in a pickle..imo.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2013, 06:05:06 PM
What other choice has he got? He boxed himself into a corner with drawing the line in the sand last year....I think he is doing the right thing.... NOW. But he should have never spouted his mouth off last year.
He has himself in a pickle..imo.
The whole situation is a pickle. Like I said in one of my very first posts, there's no good side in this war. That's why I'm opposed to US involvement in it. Let them fight it out and stay out of it. Atrocities happen around the world all the time with no US involvement whatsoever.
That and our involvement will solve nothing. One of my friends thinks its a means to a bigger end such as engaging another country in war.
Who knows really. (Rhetorical so no question mark)
I believe that we should engage in a limited, punitive strike to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated by anyone, ever. Unlike bullets, chemical weapons are indiscriminate about who they kill and everyone in the world community should agree that their use is always unreasonable and those who choose to continue to stockpile and use such weapons should pay some price for doing so.
Having said that, I find more than a little irony in moronic comments like that recently offered by Henry Hawk who completely supported the full scale invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 U.S. troops, the maiming of tens of thousands of others and the deaths of far more Iraqi non-combatants than Saddam ever killed at a cost of over $1 trillion in American taxpayer dollars. Even now, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he has, in the past few days, suggested on this forum that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the security of our country and moved them to a country that is an ally of perhaps his most profound enemy to save them for something more important than a full-on invasion of his country. This, from an 'evil dictator' empowered by, well, us, who ten years earlier couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a scud missile if his mother's life depended on it. Such talk is that of illiterate fools and miscreants too cowardly to admit to the simple, obvious fact that their racism guides their thinking...or more accurately, the lack thereof.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 01, 2013, 12:44:50 AM
I believe that we should engage in a limited, punitive strike to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated by anyone, ever. Unlike bullets, chemical weapons are indiscriminate about who they kill and everyone in the world community should agree that their use is always unreasonable and those who choose to continue to stockpile and use such weapons should pay some price for doing so.
Having said that, I find more than a little irony in moronic comments like that recently offered by Henry Hawk who completely supported the full scale invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 U.S. troops, the maiming of tens of thousands of others and the deaths of far more Iraqi non-combatants than Saddam ever killed at a cost of over $1 trillion in American taxpayer dollars. Even now, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he has, in the past few days, suggested on this forum that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the security of our country and moved them to a country that is an ally of perhaps his most profound enemy to save them for something more important than a full-on invasion of his country. This, from an 'evil dictator' empowered by, well, us, who ten years earlier couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a scud missile if his mother's life depended on it. Such talk is that of illiterate fools and miscreants too cowardly to admit to the simple, obvious fact that their racism guides their thinking...or more accurately, the lack thereof.
First of all, I did NOT support a full scale invasion. I was NOT in favor of boots on the ground. I was content after the shock and awe.
I agree with your thoughts on a limited attack...by air. Sending a message.
I also think it would be dead wrong for congress NOT to support our POTUS on this. THAT would send a horrible message to the world. Though I still think he was wrong for spouting his mouth of in the first place. We must face this and deal with it.
I suspect he'll have the votes he needs.
Quote from: Locutus on September 03, 2013, 09:41:22 AM
I suspect he'll have the votes he needs.
I do as well. This has as much to do with Iran as it does with Syria.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 03, 2013, 09:07:05 AM
I also think it would be dead wrong for congress NOT to support our POTUS on this. THAT would send a horrible message to the world. Though I still think he was wrong for spouting his mouth of in the first place. We must face this and deal with it.
Although I think if congress does not support it, they will be doing the POTUS a huge favor.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 03, 2013, 12:44:48 PM
Although I think if congress does not support it, they will be doing the POTUS a huge favor.
They're lining up behind him! (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Quote from: Exterminator on September 03, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
They're lining up behind him! (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
I figured they would...I was making a case how it would give Obama an "easy out" on this.
For the entirety of the Obama administration, nobody in Washington DC could agree on how to work together for the benefit of the American people.
From jobs to healthcare to bringing to the courts any Wall Street or banking-industry criminals. They have persisted with years of bickering and stagnating posturing resulting in near-paralysis.
Republicans and Democrats now are united because of 1500 Syrians (the reported death-toll, and I am not diminishing the tragedy of that number) but neither side could get their act together for the betterment of the 316,564,000 Americans that they supposedly represent.
"There's something happening here; what it is aint exactly clear."
Hum, just exactly which is it anyway? Did he or didn't he?
http://www.youtube.com/v/EqHx1u9Ba1c
http://www.youtube.com/v/A4nMJ0rGa18
It is called failed leadership
It is called racist rednecks.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 09:43:34 AM
It is called racist rednecks.
Posting video's is being neither redneck or racist.
There is NOTHING racist about it. He is NOT a leader. It is just that simple.
You're both just a couple of illiterate haters.
Quote from: me on September 04, 2013, 10:36:58 PM
Hum, just exactly which is it anyway? Did he or didn't he?
http://www.youtube.com/v/EqHx1u9Ba1c
http://www.youtube.com/v/A4nMJ0rGa18
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 11:22:54 AM
You're both just a couple of illiterate haters.
Watch the video's Ex.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 11:22:54 AM
You're both just a couple of illiterate haters.
and you are an idiot.
I can play this game too!
No change backs!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 05, 2013, 12:18:35 PM
and you are an idiot.
I can play this game too!
No change backs!
The obvious difference is that you are wrong.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1239375_568779616493205_1328833853_n.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 12:24:46 PM
The obvious difference is that you are wrong.
But you are an idiot, so how would you even know?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 05, 2013, 12:38:28 PM
But you are an idiot, so how would you even know?
Test scores don't lie.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1239375_568779616493205_1328833853_n.jpg)
That is SO true! :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 11:22:54 AM
You're both just a couple of illiterate haters.
Quote from: me on September 04, 2013, 10:36:58 PM
Hum, just exactly which is it anyway? Did he or didn't he?
http://www.youtube.com/v/EqHx1u9Ba1c
http://www.youtube.com/v/A4nMJ0rGa18
Quit trying to avoid the issue by hurling insults and watch the videos Ex.
If Bush had made such remarks, they would be outraged.
Just more liberal double standards....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 05, 2013, 01:39:04 PM
If Bush had made such remarks, they would be outraged.
Just more liberal double standards....
Bullshit. Nowhere in the first video does Obama say he is drawing a red line. He says, "...a red line for us..." which could easily mean us as a country or us as in the U.S. and our allies or us as the entire civilized world who have agreed to condemn anyone who resorts to using chemical and biological weapons.
You nit-picking racists are too cowardly to come out and say what you really think so you resort to trying to besmirch the president any way you can. In the absence of anything of substance, your attempts are becoming increasingly more pathetic and desperate with each passing day.
whatever skippy........I just call'em as I see'em. Skin color as NOTHING to do with it. Nadda! :no:
Riiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 02:07:15 PM
Bullshit. Nowhere in the first video does Obama say he is drawing a red line. He says, "...a red line for us..." which could easily mean us as a country or us as in the U.S. and our allies or us as the entire civilized world who have agreed to condemn anyone who resorts to using chemical and biological weapons.
You nit-picking racists are too cowardly to come out and say what you really think so you resort to trying to besmirch the president any way you can. In the absence of anything of substance, your attempts are becoming increasingly more pathetic and desperate with each passing day.
The point is "he" is the one who said he drew the red line any way you look at it. Quit trying to weasel out of it for him. Around 43sec and he ends with saying that would change his calculus. It was his red line any way you look at it.
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 03:25:06 PM
The point is "he" is the one who said he drew the red line any way you look at it. Quit trying to weasel out of it for him. Around 43sec and he ends with saying that would change his calculus. It was his red line any way you look at it.
Your inability to understand simple English reflects only on you; not on Obama. You're just trying to stir shit where none exists.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 03:46:43 PM
Your inability to understand simple English reflects only on you; not on Obama. You're just trying to stir shit where none exists.
People like you are the reason he gets over so easily not doing his job. He is using BS language, stating things in such a way he can wiggle out of things that don't go smoothly or take credit for it if they do. He is a smooth talker and you fall for it. Now go wipe your leg from the obvious reaction you get when you hear his voice. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
People like you are the reason he gets over so easily not doing his job. He is using BS language, stating things in such a way he can wiggle out of things that don't go smoothly or take credit for it if they do. He is a smooth talker and you fall for it. Now go wipe your leg from the obvious reaction you get when you hear his voice. :rolleyes:
All politicians do that. George W. Bush did that.
What's your point?
Quote from: Locutus on September 05, 2013, 07:35:28 PM
All politicians do that. George W. Bush did that.
What's your point?
You just don't get it do you? I have never seen a president play the blame game like this one.
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 08:18:53 PM
You just don't get it do you? I have never seen a president play the blame game like this one.
Apparently you weren't paying attention during the Nixon years then. . . Now
there was a liar!
Quote from: Palehorse on September 05, 2013, 08:29:46 PM
Apparently you weren't paying attention during the Nixon years then. . . Now there was a liar!
And that has what to do with playing the blame game?
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 08:44:03 PM
And that has what to do with playing the blame game?
Not paying attention again I see. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 08:18:53 PM
You just don't get it do you? I have never seen a president play the blame game like this one.
What blame game? Cite some examples.
Quote from: Locutus on September 05, 2013, 09:00:05 PM
What blame game? Cite some examples.
Good luck with that one! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on September 05, 2013, 09:00:53 PM
Good luck with that one! :rolleyes:
Yeah I'm still waiting on her to articulate those 'policy differences' she claims she has.
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 08:18:53 PM
You just don't get it do you? I have never seen a president play the blame game like this one.
Just who IS to blame other than the Syrian regime ?
Quote from: Locutus on September 05, 2013, 09:02:57 PM
Yeah I'm still waiting on her to articulate those 'policy differences' she claims she has.
Perhaps she is reviewing her grapes source? :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on September 05, 2013, 08:59:47 PM
Not paying attention again I see. . . :rolleyes:
He blames congress, the american people, Bush, he blames racism, or anyone but himself for anything that fails. He even said it wasn't his job to put in a call to Putin about Snowden. Who's job was it? Isn't he president? He is not a leader he is a delegater.
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 09:57:19 PM
He blames congress, the american people, Bush, he blames racism, or anyone but himself for anything that fails. He even said it wasn't his job to put in a call to Putin about Snowden. Who's job was it? Isn't he president? He is not a leader he is a delegater.
Your sheet is showing. What do any of those lies have to do with U.S. intervention in Syria? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on September 05, 2013, 09:00:05 PM
What blame game? Cite some examples.
I got this one...
Obama Blames Arab Spring and Japan's Earthquake on Struggling Economy and Job Situation, August 5th, 2011.
•Obama Blames Messy Democracy for His Failed Policies, August 3rd, 2011; remarks by the president at a DNC event.
•Obama Blames Congress for US Debt Mess; Obama news conference, June 29th, 2011.
•Obama Blames Republicans for Slow Pace on Immigration Reform, July 25th, 2011.
•Obama Blames Media for Lack of Compromise in Washington; remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting July 22nd, 2011.
•Obama Blames Technology for Struggling Economy; June 14th, 2011, NBC Today interview.
•Obama Blames Oil Spectators for High Oil Prices; April 19th, 2011, remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting.
•Obama Blames Reagan for America's Out of Control Debt and Spending; remarks by President Obama April 13th, 2011, Federal News Service.
•Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Lack of Fiscal Discipline, April 13th, 2011; remarks by Obama, Federal News Service.
•Obama Blames Bush-Congress for Putting Off Tough Decisions, August 17th, 2010; remarks at a fundraiser for Patty Murray.
•Obama Blames Bush for Tax Cuts, Deficits; Obama town hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wisconsin, June 30th, 2010.
•Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, June 8th, 2010; remarks by Obama at a second fundraising reception for Senator Barbara Boxer.
•Obama Blames GOP for Events that Led to Gulf Oil Spill; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.
•Obama Blames Republicans for America Not Being Able to Solve Problems; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.
•Obama Blames Corporations for Everybody's Problems, June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. He said, "If you're a Wall Street Journal bank or an insurance company or oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules regardless of the consequences for everybody else."
•Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of American Economy, April 19th, 2010, at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer.
•Obama Blames Bush, Congress for Deficits, February 1, 2010, delivering remarks on the budget.
•Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies; January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.
•Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of Economy and American Standing, April 19th of 2010. Obama delivering remarks at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer and the DNC.
•Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Deficits, February 1st, 2010, in remarks delivered on the budget.
•Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies, January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
•Obama Blames Wall Street Fat Cats for Economic Disaster, December 13th, 2009, CBS News' 60 Minutes.
•Obama Blames Bush for Overall Economy, September 27th, 2009, remarks by the president at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual dinner.
•Obama Blames Bush for Stifling Unions, September 7th, 2009; remarks by the president at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic.
•Obama Blames Bush for Prescription Drug Bill; remarks by the president, health insurance reform town hall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11th, 2009.
•Obama Blames Bush for Jobs, July 22nd, 2009; news conferences by the president.
•Obama Blames Bush for Failure to Recognize Europe's Leading Role in the World, April 3rd, 2009; remarks by President Obama at a Strasbourg [France] town hall, and in those remarks he said this: "So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship." "In America there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world, instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive of you." That's Barack Obama, speaking in Europe at Strasbourg, blaming Bush for a failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, April 3rd, 2009.
•Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, February 23rd, 2009; Obama delivering opening remarks at fiscal responsibility summit.
•Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for his Elitist Label, New York Times, October 2008.
•Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for Likely Loss in Kentucky Primary, May 2008.
•Candidate Obama Blames Washington for High Gas Prices, April 25th, 2008; remarks of Senator Barack Obama, press availability on energy plan, 25 April 2008.
Quote from: Palehorse on September 06, 2013, 07:53:07 AM
Your sheet is showing. What do any of those lies have to do with U.S. intervention in Syria? :rolleyes:
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
http://www.youtube.com/v/n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 06, 2013, 08:18:06 AM
I got this one...
All you have is Rush Limbaugh's dick in your mouth.
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
Your attempts to exploit your token negro only serve to further underscore how much of a bigot you are. You really don't get it; do you?
When you have to resort to insults and name-calling...it is always a sign of defeat...and admission to being unable to support your belief. ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 06, 2013, 09:07:45 AM
When you have to resort to insults and name-calling...it is always a sign of defeat...and admission to being unable to support your belief. ;)
Feel free to entertain whatever little fantasy makes you feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 09:27:28 AM
Feel free to entertain whatever little fantasy makes you feel good about yourself. :rolleyes:
Just stating a fact...
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1239375_568779616493205_1328833853_n.jpg)
I saw that already. Why don't you post it a couple of more times? I think you are just proving my point. ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 06, 2013, 09:50:20 AM
I saw that already. Why don't you post it a couple of more times? I think you are just proving my point. ;D
Actually, you are proving mine.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 10:11:47 AM
Actually, you are proving mine.
Keep on trying. You really can be pathetic. Give it up and move on.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 06, 2013, 10:51:19 AM
You really can be pathetic.
You calling me pathetic is hysterical!
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
You calling me pathetic is hysterical!
Again, my point and case.
"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity and pride and arrogance." ;) :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 06, 2013, 11:05:15 AM
Again, my point and case.
"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity and pride and arrogance." ;) :yes:
You may want to consider a bit of introspection. In the meantime, here's a monkey in a snowsuit... (http://youtu.be/-iasUCRzjGk)
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 11:32:45 AM
You may want to consider a bit of introspection. In the meantime, here's a monkey in a snowsuit... (http://youtu.be/-iasUCRzjGk)
Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. Total consciousness....You got that goin' for you, which is nice. :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 08:42:44 AM
Your attempts to exploit your token negro only serve to further underscore how much of a bigot you are. You really don't get it; do you?
And once again you prove my point with your truly racist comment.
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
http://www.youtube.com/v/n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 12:12:28 PM
And once again you prove my point with your truly racist comment.
That's how you've been programmed to respond.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 12:26:37 PM
That's how you've been programmed to respond.
Meaning: I have no response for the video so I will hurl insults and do some name calling instead.
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 12:30:20 PM
Meaning: I have no response for the video so I will hurl insults and do some name calling instead.
No, meaning you're a brain-washed nitwit who doesn't warrant me wasting my time trying to explain things to you that you could never possibly understand.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 06, 2013, 12:44:43 PM
No, meaning you're a brain-washed nitwit who doesn't warrant me wasting my time trying to explain things to you that you could never possibly understand.
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 12:30:20 PM
Meaning: I have no response for the video so I will hurl insults and do some name calling instead.
:biggrin: :man: :rotfl:
Quote from: me on September 05, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Now go wipe your leg from the obvious reaction you get when you hear his voice. :rolleyes:
Way to keep it classy, redneck.
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 12:12:28 PM
And once again you prove my point with your truly racist comment.
Talk about one lying SPOOK! :preach: :pray: :pope: :haha: :haha:
George W. Bush's shadow is sure all over the Syrian war. :yes: The American people are sick of George W's and the Republican wars. :rant:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: The Troll on September 08, 2013, 12:56:34 PM
George W. Bush's shadow is sure all over the Syrian war. :yes: The American people are sick of George W's and the Republican wars. :rant:
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
http://www.youtube.com/v/n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Exterminator on September 05, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1239375_568779616493205_1328833853_n.jpg)
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
http://www.youtube.com/v/n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Exterminator on September 09, 2013, 08:34:39 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1239375_568779616493205_1328833853_n.jpg)
Now, John Kerry drew another line in the sand by giving Syria ONE week to hand over Chemical Weapons or face and attack.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 09, 2013, 12:20:37 PM
Now, John Kerry drew another line in the sand by giving Syria ONE week to hand over Chemical Weapons or face and attack.
I know that has them shaking in their boots. :rolleyes: Talk about an idiot.
Let the Jew fly boys bomb the bastard. :yes: They have got some of the best pilots in the world and they are flying our planes. :yes:
Quote from: me on September 09, 2013, 01:57:25 PM
I know that has them shaking in their boots. :rolleyes: Talk about an idiot.
He was speaking rhetorically. Now who's the idiot?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 09, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
He was speaking rhetorically. Now who's the idiot?
Sure he was...... :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
http://www.youtube.com/v/n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: me on September 09, 2013, 03:39:01 PM
Sure he was...... :rolleyes:
He actually said he was at the same time he supposedly gave them a week but you wouldn't know that because you
never attempt to validate anything.
And please stop posting your token negro...no one fucking cares!
Quote from: Exterminator on September 09, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
He actually said he was at the same time he supposedly gave them a week but you wouldn't know that because you never attempt to validate anything.
And please stop posting your token negro...no one fucking cares!
Racist.
Quote from: me on September 09, 2013, 04:56:13 PM
Racist.
Love your new signature and glad to see you finally accept responsibility!
Quote from: me on September 06, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
Watch the video, just a few of many. Stop with the racist thing already he is not above criticism because of his color, that does not make him God.
This is how the liberals work. It's getting old, mighty old.
http://www.youtube.com/v/n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded
It would serve you well to listen to this Ex and let it sink.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2013, 09:49:00 AM
It would serve you well to listen to this Ex and let it sink.
Would you please stop fucking posting this over and over? We've seen it. We weren't impressed.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2013, 10:03:59 AM
Would you please stop fucking posting this over and over? We've seen it. We weren't impressed.
Didn't learn a thing from it did you?
Quote from: me on September 10, 2013, 10:58:19 AM
Didn't learn a thing from it did you?
No, because there is nothing to learn from it.
Want my guess about what's going on? The President and Biden and Kerry make seemingly contradictory statements to give the press and everybody else something to second-guess about ad infinitum, while the media talkers interview everybody from on-the-street Joe :rolleyes: to each other, and members of the House and Senate posture. In the meantime, the pros pull a few strings, make a few trades, call in some favors, make some implied threats, and the Syrian president gets brain freeze while trying to figure out who in the :rant: United States is in charge. And last but not least, I wonder just what President Obama really said to Putin when nobody was looking. :sneaky:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2013, 11:04:26 AM
No, because there is nothing to learn from it.
He pretty much states how the liberals work and from what I've observed he is spot on.
Quote from: me on September 10, 2013, 11:10:05 AM
He pretty much states how the liberals work and from what I've observed he is spot on.
Your opinion and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 10, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
Your opinion and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.
Ex, I think you're give her to much credit. :haha: :thumbsup:
Quote from: libby on September 10, 2013, 11:04:44 AM
Want my guess about what's going on? The President and Biden and Kerry make seemingly contradictory statements to give the press and everybody else something to second-guess about ad infinitum, while the media talkers interview everybody from on-the-street Joe :rolleyes: to each other, and members of the House and Senate posture. In the meantime, the pros pull a few strings, make a few trades, call in some favors, make some implied threats, and the Syrian president gets brain freeze while trying to figure out who in the :rant: United States is in charge. And last but not least, I wonder just what President Obama really said to Putin when nobody was looking. :sneaky:
I didn't mean to include you -- the people who write on this forum -- when I wrote "...and everybody else..." above. I think this forum has a very good debating team and I for one don't want to mess with it (you).
(CNN) - Responding to Russian President Vladimir Putin's controversial opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. John McCain jokingly told CNN's Jake Tapper he'd like to write a commentary for Pravda, the historic Russian newspaper connected to the Communist Party.
Well, now it looks like McCain may get his wish.
According to Foreign Policy's blog The Cable, the editors of Pravda have tentatively agreed to publish an op-ed by the Arizona Republican. The opinion piece will most likely reflect McCain's strong negative views toward Putin.
"We have to remember who Putin is. He's a KGB colonel apparatchik, who has never abandoned the Russian ambitions for an empire, and influence in the world," McCain said Thursday on Tapper's show, "The Lead."
Dmitry Sudakov, the English editor of Pravda, told The Cable that if McCain wants to write an op-ed, he is "welcome."
"Mr. McCain has been an active anti-Russian politician for many years already," Sudakov continued. "We have been critical of his stance on Russia and international politics in our materials, but we would be only pleased to publish a story penned by such a prominent politician as John McCain."
A spokesman for McCain told The Cable that McCain "would be glad to write something for Pravda, so we'll be reaching out to Dmitry with a submission."
:no:
McCain lost; he needs to get over it.
Regardless of his desire to "hit back" at Putin for his piece in the NYT, there are negotiations going on at higher levels regarding Syrian chemical weapons and he needs to keep his big mouth shut until those negotiations are over.
Putin's piece for discussion:
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
I don't think that he wrote this new piece and it doesn't matter it's all bullshit. :bsflag:
Quote from: Locutus on September 14, 2013, 12:54:42 AM
Putin's piece for discussion:
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Clearly, he has the right to say whatever he wants and the Times can print whatever they want. Personally, I dislike beling lectured to by anyone, let alone Mr. Putin. I'm pretty sure he thinks he is "exceptional". I do not trust him or the Syrian government as far as I could throw them. Give a promise not to attack, why not just dismantle all our armed forces and turn the ships and planes into scrap metal. I don't think we should attack Syria at this point, but I don't think we should take that option off the taable either.