|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 31, 2013 11:23:49 GMT -8
That's right, an accused Obama 'supporter' is against a strike. Of course, I'm not exactly an 'Obama supporter', even though message board 'etiquette' insinuates one must be 'one or the other'.
Anyways, if the UN, or a coalition of Western (or even Eastern) nations decided to take action against Syria, then I'd be OK. But this 'one man police force' sh*t has got to stop.
This does not mean I am unsympathetic to the victims in Syria. I'm sympathetic to a lot of mistreated peoples in this world. But we can't save them all.
The one thing I believe Obama has more or less gotten right is his backpedaling on US intervention policies. Iraq was a catastrophe. If one wants to 'depoliticize' the argument? Vietnam (a Democrat war) was a catastrophe.
Enough already. The US really needs to prepare itself for a New World Order, and I'm not talking 'illuminati' or anything like it. I'm talking economic equivalence, and guess what? It's basically here already.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 31, 2013 12:20:13 GMT -8
I would imagine anyone who was against Bush invading Iran (which he didn't) would be against it.
Knowing how underhanded and lacking in integrity/credibility Obama is, he's going to 'go through the motions' of going to congress with it, but ultimately he will go against them, make up all kinds of stupid excuses why they're wrong, and go in without their support.
He is probably doing it to let Joe Biden off the hook because he had said it's an impeachable offense to bypass congress. So now he can say, "see? I went to congress first," then he'll do what he wants anyway. He is a 100% political reptile.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 31, 2013 13:23:23 GMT -8
I would imagine anyone who was against Bush invading Iran (which he didn't) would be against it.
Knowing how underhanded and lacking in integrity/credibility Obama is, he's going to 'go through the motions' of going to congress with it, but ultimately he will go against them, make up all kinds of stupid excuses why they're wrong, and go in without their support.
He is probably doing it to let Joe Biden off the hook because he had said it's an impeachable offense to bypass congress. So now he can say, "see? I went to congress first," then he'll do what he wants anyway. He is a 100% political reptile.
OK, then. Well, even if he doesn't 'invade', you wouldn't like his reasons? Maybe I'm reading too far in? Either way, what about Iran? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Aug 31, 2013 14:13:44 GMT -8
BTW. Watch my fkkn rage if this guy does 'go it alone'.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Aug 31, 2013 15:29:12 GMT -8
Why does America (or anyone else) feel they have to act like the world's policeman?
Sure Assad is scum; the rebels are just as bad.
It's a civil war between Sunni and Shia and the only intelligent thing is to stay out of it.
Obama is mad if he genuinely believes that dropping a few missiles will solve anything.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 31, 2013 17:14:15 GMT -8
I would imagine anyone who was against Bush invading Iran (which he didn't) would be against it.
Knowing how underhanded and lacking in integrity/credibility Obama is, he's going to 'go through the motions' of going to congress with it, but ultimately he will go against them, make up all kinds of stupid excuses why they're wrong, and go in without their support.
He is probably doing it to let Joe Biden off the hook because he had said it's an impeachable offense to bypass congress. So now he can say, "see? I went to congress first," then he'll do what he wants anyway. He is a 100% political reptile.
OK, then. Well, even if he doesn't 'invade', you wouldn't like his reasons? Maybe I'm reading too far in? Either way, what about Iran? Am I missing something?
Yes, when there was talk that Bush might attack Iran, Joe Biden wadded his shorts over it and said he would move to impeach Bush if didn't get approval from congress. Bush never attacked Iran anyway, but if Obama goes it alone and bypasses congress, watch Biden eat his words.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 31, 2013 17:16:00 GMT -8
Why does America (or anyone else) feel they have to act like the world's policeman? Sure Assad is scum; the rebels are just as bad. It's a civil war between Sunni and Shia and the only intelligent thing is to stay out of it. Obama is mad if he genuinely believes that dropping a few missiles will solve anything.
IMO, it's not about Syria with Obama. It's all about Obama with Obama. He drew an imaginary 'red line' and Assad crossed it, so now he has to rattle his sabre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 10:02:33 GMT -8
The UK voted no to military action , that was the right thing imo
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Sept 1, 2013 15:53:42 GMT -8
Why does America (or anyone else) feel they have to act like the world's policeman? Sure Assad is scum; the rebels are just as bad. It's a civil war between Sunni and Shia and the only intelligent thing is to stay out of it. Obama is mad if he genuinely believes that dropping a few missiles will solve anything.
IMO, it's not about Syria with Obama. It's all about Obama with Obama. He drew an imaginary 'red line' and Assad crossed it, so now he has to rattle his sabre.Rather like Bush did with Iraq which wasn't about Iraq with Bush; it was all about Bush with Bush. He invented a totally fictitious cache of 'weapons of mass destruction' which was HIS imaginary 'red line' and so he rattled his sabre. Le plus ce change and all that! Just shows - Republicans and Democrats are both led by idiots and worse!
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 1, 2013 16:39:43 GMT -8
Something like that. I was not a big fan of Bush and didn't like him either, but I think he actually had some experience working in the private sector, governing, running a business, etc., even if he did run those businesses to the ground.
I didn't buy his bullsh*t either and was on message boards posting that Colin Powell read a 'doctored' letter to the UN; about how Bush didn't let the inspectors in Iraq, etc.
Bush and Obama are opposites in that one had experience but could barely put a sentence together, and the other is articulate with no experience outside of the government system.
Another difference is Bush had support from allies and congress; he had an objective which was regime change in Iraq; and the Iraqis supported the war and the people and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein.
What is Obama's objective? To show Assad he's doing something for crossing his 'red line'? He's not even calling for regime change. He thinks firing a missile is going to stop Assad? At one time he implied just 'talking' and working his smooth-talking magic would bring these people around.
I didn't like Bush, but Obama has proven to be waaaaay worse, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Sept 2, 2013 6:12:37 GMT -8
Bush was completely inept. Two wars on a credit card. One of them (at least) founded on lies. As if to hammer home the economic stupidity behind this, our economy collapsed.
?
I think this depends on who you ask. Our 'noble goal' being 'regime change'?
The US was the strongest voice in the UN for 40 years. One could even say it was 'our baby'. The US viewed the UN as 'the last word' for decades.
Until they stopped agreeing with us. Then they were called 'illegitimate and inept'. Funny how this works.
My problem with Obama is far more realistic than yours. My problem is, short of HC, he hasn't really done anything.
|
|
|
Post by section8vet on Sept 12, 2013 5:00:42 GMT -8
the us is a signatory to treaties which proscribe certain actions. so if we are to take our obligations seriously and if those treaties provide for signatories to punish violators then that is sufficient to justify limited military action. the chemical weapons treaty is in force but I don't know if it has a punishment mechanism.
on the other hand, when you are the sole superpower and you drape your political discourse in heavily laden moral/religious language then a moral imperative to intervene arises.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Sept 16, 2013 8:15:48 GMT -8
Who says America IS the sole superpower? I think Russia and China could both reasonably dispute that assumption.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 16, 2013 8:29:29 GMT -8
If it's at all debatable now it's only because Obama has weakened the US.
I certainly don't like the idea of human rights violators being a superpowers.
|
|
|
Post by mickeeteeze on Sept 16, 2013 11:34:03 GMT -8
If it's at all debatable now it's only because Obama has weakened the US.
I certainly don't like the idea of human rights violators being a superpowers.You know what, Heeeeey? Your unshakeable belief America went from 'universally loved' and Beacon of the Western World, to immorality and third world poverty on January 20th, 2009, is laughable. Truthfully? I don't believe you fully believe it. It's a freaking 'talking point'. You don't like Human Rights Violators being super powers? OK, you don't like it, but one has nothing to do with the other. It's about money and weapons. What I'm about to say is true: it's just looking through the opposite lens. Capitalism is a system wherein resources are used for profit. Generally speaking, much innovation is owed to Capitalism, of this there can be no doubt. The downside is? The raw materials have to come from somewhere. When other nations speak of American Oppression? Number one, I won't give Europe a pass here. They are in it too. Backroom frecking deals. But most importantly? Capitalists, with Government protection, buy out the wealthy land owners, and use all the raw materials in Sector "A" of wherever they are doing 'business' (Saudi Arabia, great example). So.....the Landowners get fabulously rich, the capitalists get fabulously rich, the governments make money, and the 'customers' (in todays world, westerners), live more comfortably. But? Whoever actually lives there trying to survive? Are oppressed. To them it's plain and simple. They don't see the US as 'the benevolent master'. To be fair, the US hasn't 'invaded' continent after continent to install our version of 'rule of law'. We generally find the price. And France, Germany, England, etc, are all a part of this. I keep mentioning it, because I've interacted with many Europeans who seem to have this 'blind spot'. The reason Islam is associated with all of this? Because the recently oppressed people happen to be Muslims. Oh, their leaders are more than happy to dress the whole thing in "God" or "Allah", or 'what have you', but it's about money. Make no mistake: if I was living here on Long Island in abject poverty, while every single day armed people dug wheel barrels full of money out of my backyard? Then walked away from me? Day after day, after week, after year, after decades? I'd be pissed. I wouldn't believe in 'humanity' anymore, a ground floor for religious nuts right there. That's how it happens. Am I shilling for Communism? No. I am just acutely aware "absolute power corrupts", and big money people in this world have it. Usually top tier Communists are corrupt, too, for the same reasons. Extremists from the ME bombed my city. I am against them. But the whole "Americans on the White Horse, the other guy on the Black Horse"? Way passed that.
|
|