A continual assault with lies and distortion, putting words in people's mouths, a perpetual reliance on false data, graphs and photoshop. How failed can one be?
Syria
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Hay Bob, I think you have found the perfect title for your autobiography.
I know it's a little long for a book title, but it really covers the things that are important to Bob!
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
It is entirely possible if not probable that the Syrian rebels/ terrorists gassed their own people. They have been begging for U.S. involvement and would not hesitate to do whatever it takes to get them into the conflict.
That it may trigger WW111 would be of no concern to them.
That it may trigger WW111 would be of no concern to them.
Has anyone stopped to wonder why the President who has done basically what he has wanted through executive order, is now asking the Congress to debate and vote on the Syrian attack proposal?
No Al most thinking people can read this dope with ease, but it's sure fun watching the lib media scratch their heads.:laugh:
BINGO. Exactly.
We'd be hard pressed to find anyone who pays any attention at all to what goes on daily - that even includes some liberals (well, save folks like Mr. Craik, I suppose) - who can't see what he's doing.
But the majority of the sheeple have no c-l-u-e at all. Witness the results of the past 2 presidential elections.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
I said this several days ago, it appears the the Republican leaders agree with me.
******************
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after a White House meeting that he supports the president's "call for action" against Syria, and he believes most other congressional Republicans will do so as well.
"The use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act," Boehner said. "The use of these weapons has to be responded to."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., also endorsed military action, saying that the United States has "a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria."
***********
There was a time when politics stopped at the border, it's very good to see that the Republican leaders have decided to be Americans, its been awhile.
Last edited:
The guy is an ace politician for sure. I hope the republicans are learning from his methods.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Look on the Washington Post web site, for "Nine Things You Were Afraid To Ask About Syria", or something like that. Yes, I know it's a liberal rag, but even a liberal rag can get things right.
I think bombing Syria is a crock of shit. I think John McCain got hit on the head too many times in Viet Nam and is an idiot. I thought Lindsey Graham was smarter than this. I think the whole idea is ridiculous.
I think bombing Syria is a crock of shit. I think John McCain got hit on the head too many times in Viet Nam and is an idiot. I thought Lindsey Graham was smarter than this. I think the whole idea is ridiculous.
Charlie Farley
Supporter
To my American friends and I mean Friends,
Take a step back please.
The UK government decided to put it to a vote, the answer was No.
Thus our Prime Minister absolved himself of all responsibility.
The next day he was called all sorts of names in the press.
Your military then barred our military from attending classified meetings on the actions to be taken regarding Syria.
Your President must have done some serious thinking and realised that the UK Prime Minister wasn't such a jerk after all, his move in putting it to a vote was a quite cute move.
I fear any NATO or UN led move on Syria. That WILL be Iraq by a magnitude of 5 or possibly 10. And we all know how well beforehand the incursion into Iraq was planned.....NOT!
Egypt hasn't settled down, Tunisia or Libya either. Powder kegs waiting to reignite.
Plus the likes of Lebanon, Jordan, even Turkey. And then there is Israel, that would really suck you in big time !! Ground troops and all...
We are all just starting to come out of a recession, any action would risk plunging us into one that would make the last one look like someone had dropped their ice cream...
As to the issue of using poison gas....cmon...it's been used since the first world war and will be used again. What's the difference between that and the use of napalm ? Napalm is not a banned weapon.
There seems to be a lot of hysteria involved, if you have to differentiate.
And possibly a lot of political capital to be made...
Take a step back please.
The UK government decided to put it to a vote, the answer was No.
Thus our Prime Minister absolved himself of all responsibility.
The next day he was called all sorts of names in the press.
Your military then barred our military from attending classified meetings on the actions to be taken regarding Syria.
Your President must have done some serious thinking and realised that the UK Prime Minister wasn't such a jerk after all, his move in putting it to a vote was a quite cute move.
I fear any NATO or UN led move on Syria. That WILL be Iraq by a magnitude of 5 or possibly 10. And we all know how well beforehand the incursion into Iraq was planned.....NOT!
Egypt hasn't settled down, Tunisia or Libya either. Powder kegs waiting to reignite.
Plus the likes of Lebanon, Jordan, even Turkey. And then there is Israel, that would really suck you in big time !! Ground troops and all...
We are all just starting to come out of a recession, any action would risk plunging us into one that would make the last one look like someone had dropped their ice cream...
As to the issue of using poison gas....cmon...it's been used since the first world war and will be used again. What's the difference between that and the use of napalm ? Napalm is not a banned weapon.
There seems to be a lot of hysteria involved, if you have to differentiate.
And possibly a lot of political capital to be made...
marc
Lifetime Supporter
wasn't a pressure cooker filled with exxplosives deemed a WMD in Boston? How many killed deems a wmd?
why should we get involved when we didn't get involved in the war between Iran and Iraq when they used chemical weapons.
Not our job to fix the world, unless it effects the US economically or its patrons or partners.
why should we get involved when we didn't get involved in the war between Iran and Iraq when they used chemical weapons.
Not our job to fix the world, unless it effects the US economically or its patrons or partners.
Pat
Supporter
As Andrew said earlier, take a step back and think about this. Military intervention in Syria is a mistake right now, especially under these circumstances.
While everyone loves to hate/mock/insult George Bush, he was right about Iraq and the overall geopolitical threat (found WMD or not) Saddam Hussein posed. Osama bin Laden called the war in Iraq "the most important and serious issue today for the whole world," and his successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, said that victory there was essential if al-Qaida's dream of a caliphate was to be realized. Their comments suggest that Bush had genuine reason to believe that action in Iraq would help defeat al-Qaida even if Saddam had no ties to 9/11.
David Kay, who led the inspection team that determined that there were no WMD in Iraq, told Congress in 2004, "It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was before the war." Asked, "Knowing what you know now, would you still support going in?" Kay responded, "Absolutely."
Saddam Hussein was not just a genocidal monster but a sociopathic killer and megalomaniac who cared nothing for the lives of his subjects or anyone else. He also had design of regional domination. If Bush had backed down and allowed him to remain in power, he would have returned to WMD production as soon as the inspectors were gone, substantially destabilizing the Middle East and discrediting America's standing with every country in the region. Again, in David Kay's words, Iraq under Saddam was "More dangerous ... potentially than ... we thought ... before the war." If that potential danger had been allowed to materialize, today's criticism of Bush would be, "He should have had the courage to take out Saddam when he had the chance." For me, the half-million corpses in mass graves and geopolitical location settled the issues as to the necessity of regime change as does the simply fact that Iraq is no longer a threat to world peace.
The same can be said for Assad. The problem is we have a parallel to the first Gulf War (someplace I had some "intimate" involvement). In 1991 we spanked Saddam Hussein, we "degraded his military", we bombed his facilities and we left him in power. But this made Gulf II (a.k.a.) the Iraq War inevitable. But how did the massive military action affect Saddam's behavior? In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... and the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances". After the war, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq. As punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. After the 2003 invasion my old unit found several torture centers in state security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.
So if the 1991 Gulf War didn't dissuade Saddam Hussein, why on earth do we think a "short duration limited number of strikes" will do anything to Assad? President Obama has argued such strikes are not intended to topple the Syrian regime. Then why do them, for what purpose? If Assad survives the action (and he will) it increases, not decreases the chance he will be emboldened to further use of chemical weapons as he knows he can do them with relative impunity. Further, he's had the time to relocate and hide his chemical stockpiles and delivery systems making their degradation even less likely.
Our President is a victim of his own "red line" rhetoric. Unless we are willing to go all in against the Syrian regime to topple it, and we're not, we need to tolerate the idiocy of UN rhetoric as an excuse to quietly back down.
While everyone loves to hate/mock/insult George Bush, he was right about Iraq and the overall geopolitical threat (found WMD or not) Saddam Hussein posed. Osama bin Laden called the war in Iraq "the most important and serious issue today for the whole world," and his successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, said that victory there was essential if al-Qaida's dream of a caliphate was to be realized. Their comments suggest that Bush had genuine reason to believe that action in Iraq would help defeat al-Qaida even if Saddam had no ties to 9/11.
David Kay, who led the inspection team that determined that there were no WMD in Iraq, told Congress in 2004, "It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was before the war." Asked, "Knowing what you know now, would you still support going in?" Kay responded, "Absolutely."
Saddam Hussein was not just a genocidal monster but a sociopathic killer and megalomaniac who cared nothing for the lives of his subjects or anyone else. He also had design of regional domination. If Bush had backed down and allowed him to remain in power, he would have returned to WMD production as soon as the inspectors were gone, substantially destabilizing the Middle East and discrediting America's standing with every country in the region. Again, in David Kay's words, Iraq under Saddam was "More dangerous ... potentially than ... we thought ... before the war." If that potential danger had been allowed to materialize, today's criticism of Bush would be, "He should have had the courage to take out Saddam when he had the chance." For me, the half-million corpses in mass graves and geopolitical location settled the issues as to the necessity of regime change as does the simply fact that Iraq is no longer a threat to world peace.
The same can be said for Assad. The problem is we have a parallel to the first Gulf War (someplace I had some "intimate" involvement). In 1991 we spanked Saddam Hussein, we "degraded his military", we bombed his facilities and we left him in power. But this made Gulf II (a.k.a.) the Iraq War inevitable. But how did the massive military action affect Saddam's behavior? In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... and the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances". After the war, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq. As punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. After the 2003 invasion my old unit found several torture centers in state security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.
So if the 1991 Gulf War didn't dissuade Saddam Hussein, why on earth do we think a "short duration limited number of strikes" will do anything to Assad? President Obama has argued such strikes are not intended to topple the Syrian regime. Then why do them, for what purpose? If Assad survives the action (and he will) it increases, not decreases the chance he will be emboldened to further use of chemical weapons as he knows he can do them with relative impunity. Further, he's had the time to relocate and hide his chemical stockpiles and delivery systems making their degradation even less likely.
Our President is a victim of his own "red line" rhetoric. Unless we are willing to go all in against the Syrian regime to topple it, and we're not, we need to tolerate the idiocy of UN rhetoric as an excuse to quietly back down.
Its not his dog and it didn't bite you anyway;
"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria | The Weekly Standard
"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria | The Weekly Standard
I really think this sounds much more of a Fechterish, Hardyish comment, does't it?
Fool. That's a playground response and totally inaccurate.. I'll qualify that - I also believe the British Govt are still researching and manufacturing chemical weapons at Porton Down - not just the USA, although Veek has responded in a mature fashion (unlike others - typically) and I would like to think he is right on this occasion and I am wrong. But, with both countries there have been long histories of Black and otherwise deniable ops that not even the Executive Branches of Govt know about...
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Originally Posted by Keith1
If you believe the US military has stopped researching and producing limited quantities of chemical weapons and other Area Denial weapons you would be very much mistaken my friend.
Sorry if this post sounds a bit Craikish - it's not meant to be - it's how it came out.
So let me see if I understand. Keith makes a totally untrue claim and says is "Craikish".
Due to the untrue nature of the post, I responded with........
Originally Posted by Jim Craik
I really think this sounds much more of a Fechterish, Hardyish comment, does't it?
Now Keiths response.........................
"Fool. That's a playground response"..........................
Really?
Say Keith, you made a bold statment earlier in this thread about blocking me, was that true?
Last edited:
And that says it all, thanks Pat.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I think the problem I have with the idea of bombing Syria is that all the people who are espousing the idea are people I don't trust. McCain never met a war he didn't like, Kerry is a pompous windbag and an indecisive shitpile, John Boehner is publicly endorsing the idea while making it clear that he's not going to push his colleagues to vote for it- in other words, like a lot of these guys, he's backing both horses with a foot on each one. The only one I can't understand is Lindsey Graham- I don't always agree with him, but he's not stupid and I can't get why he's in favor of this. He may be the only honest one in the bunch; all the rest of them are politically posturing and making me sick while they're doing it.
I think Obama's position is this: he drew a line thinking Assad would be smart enough to avoid crossing it. That was not real bright- a foreign dictator fighting for his life, not just his political life, couldn't give a damn about offending the POTUS. Assad has maneuvered the President into a "shit or get off the pot" position- an interesting political victory for a man who can't even safely leave his own palace.
As far as the Jim and Bob Show, I wish you guys would give it a rest and let the rest of us argue about Syria. Jim, I am particularly annoyed that you are now quoting people (Boehner) that I suspect formerly you despised- and who, frankly, I still despise. That smacks of political opportunism and I think you ought to avoid it. You know damn well you don't agree with Boehner on anything and that his endorsement of bombing Syria is convenient cover for the fact that he's going to hang the President out to dry as usual- unless, of course, his House colleagues vote for action and cover him. You ought to be smart enough to see through that.
I think Obama's position is this: he drew a line thinking Assad would be smart enough to avoid crossing it. That was not real bright- a foreign dictator fighting for his life, not just his political life, couldn't give a damn about offending the POTUS. Assad has maneuvered the President into a "shit or get off the pot" position- an interesting political victory for a man who can't even safely leave his own palace.
As far as the Jim and Bob Show, I wish you guys would give it a rest and let the rest of us argue about Syria. Jim, I am particularly annoyed that you are now quoting people (Boehner) that I suspect formerly you despised- and who, frankly, I still despise. That smacks of political opportunism and I think you ought to avoid it. You know damn well you don't agree with Boehner on anything and that his endorsement of bombing Syria is convenient cover for the fact that he's going to hang the President out to dry as usual- unless, of course, his House colleagues vote for action and cover him. You ought to be smart enough to see through that.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jimbo,
I strongly feel that the World needs to take a stand, using chemical or nuclear weapons should not be tolerated and absolutly needs to be addressed.
As it appears that I am very much in the minority in this thinking, I fet that showing that leaders on both sides, Republicans and Democrats (the ones who will be making the decision) agree with ME, might just be an important part of what I feel is a very important discussion.
Leaders from both sides met with the President, saw the evidence, saw the intelagence data, heard the the Presidents reasons..............and agree with him!
Folks who NEVER agree with the President after seeing the data now agree, I think that is important, sorry if you don't.
Last edited:
Similar threads
