|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
In the end, I believe Obama will feel the urge to "save face" and go commando so he doesn't look weak. The problem is, he already looks about as weak as it can get.
This could be done (without letting intentions be known) with a massive influx of American troops into Israel, a Navy battle group in the Mediterranean Sea (most likely already there) and the Persian Gulf. Let the World wonder about what the US is up to.
Only a few problems with your scenario. Where are the US troops going to come from that will go into Israel? What makes you so sure that Israel will allow them into their country, even if they are to be confined to a base? Ships are being sent to the immediate area even now but there's a minor problem in the plan too. The Russians already have a naval base in Syria. Do you suggest that the Russians will simply let their ally (Syria) be bombed while their military is stationed there? What happens if the Russian fleet moves out into the Mediterranean to intercept our ships and a confrontation ensues?
You can spout all this bluster and puff out your chest but in the end, it means nothing. If Congress authorizes military action (and I don't think that they will) and Obama proceeds to use it, we could be seeing a very wide-ranging war break out, including the USA and Russia on opposing sides.
If Congress doesn't authorize military action and Obama issues orders anyway, I don't think that he would survive to the 2014 elections. He would be impeached in the House AND convicted in the Senate and removed from office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It was reported in January (not August - or even July) and that it's conceivable (that it's even thought to be remotely possible) that the US government (under this regime or another) could be thought capable of such actions speaks volumes about how off-the-rails this nation has become.
Not off the rails when it was built this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It was reported in January (not August - or even July) and that it's conceivable (that it's even thought to be remotely possible) that the US government (under this regime or another) could be thought capable of such actions speaks volumes about how off-the-rails this nation has become.
Not off the rails when it was built this way.
It was built this way?  Take a read through Washington's farewell address. It wasn't built this way. What we have now is what it has become, not what it was intended and built to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It was reported in January (not August - or even July) and that it's conceivable (that it's even thought to be remotely possible) that the US government (under this regime or another) could be thought capable of such actions speaks volumes about how off-the-rails this nation has become.
Not off the rails when it was built this way.
It was built this way? Take a read through Washington's farewell address. It wasn't built this way. What we have now is what it has become, not what it was intended and built to be.
A nation that was built through blood and fire, that enslaved a race of people while exterminating and stealing the land of others, was never a neutral nation.
And as far as I'm concerned, Ben Franklin was the only good founding father.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two thoughts came to mind immediately....One, what exactly does anyone in the US have to gain by limited strikes on Syria?
Diverting attention from the Barnum and Bailey circus this administration has become? I'm still trying to figure out what was gained from meddling in Egypt, Libya and Iraq. Either our government is stupid enough to think replacing a tyrant with a terrorist supported regime is helping the poor citizenry, or there's some truth to that article, If there's another option, please let me know, because I can't see one.
It was reported in January (not August - or even July) and that it's conceivable (that it's even thought to be remotely possible) that the US government (under this regime or another) could be thought capable of such actions speaks volumes about how off-the-rails this nation has become.
Not off the rails when it was built this way.
It was built this way? Take a read through Washington's farewell address. It wasn't built this way. What we have now is what it has become, not what it was intended and built to be.
Take a read through Eisenhower's farewell address.
We've been on this path for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,338
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,338 |
Eisenhower was never underrated as a General, but I feel was underrated as a President.
A leader is a leader, and he saw how politics was corrupting government. A new machine was being born of which he gave us warning.
Ike was the last of the "old time" Presidents. All since have been born in a political hatchery. Reagan was old enough to have some of the old time in him, but he too was a political manifestation who could draw on the old time ways and values.
Jimmy Carter was true.....he was just overmatched. The last " Good Guy" so to speak. The Machine ate him up.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Eisenhower was never underrated as a General, but I feel was underrated as a President.
A leader is a leader, and he saw how politics was corrupting government. A new machine was being born of which he gave us warning.
Ike was the last of the "old time" Presidents. All since have been born in a political hatchery. Reagan was old enough to have some of the old time in him, but he too was a political manifestation who could draw on the old time ways and values.
Jimmy Carter was true.....he was just overmatched. The last " Good Guy" so to speak. The Machine ate him up.
I agree with all of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,520 |
Quote:
Quote:
Eisenhower was never underrated as a General, but I feel was underrated as a President.
A leader is a leader, and he saw how politics was corrupting government. A new machine was being born of which he gave us warning.
Ike was the last of the "old time" Presidents. All since have been born in a political hatchery. Reagan was old enough to have some of the old time in him, but he too was a political manifestation who could draw on the old time ways and values.
Jimmy Carter was true.....he was just overmatched. The last " Good Guy" so to speak. The Machine ate him up.
I agree with all of that.
So do I..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
jc:
i don't post on here often, mostly because i hate this interface. so i post more on the old boards.
but i'' be heading to Turkey in a few months. they already have people going to kuwait, and some units from Ft. hood are already in Egypt. its easy knowledge to find out so i won't get in trouble for telling y'all this.
it's about to go down.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Just asking because I don't know the answer. Exactly which group does our govt want in power in Syria? If Assad was removed is someone better going to be in power or another evil person or group?
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,240
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,240 |
Quote:
Just asking because I don't know the answer. Exactly which group does our govt want in power in Syria? If Assad was removed is someone better going to be in power or another evil person or group?
There are several factions of rebels fighting against Assad and the Syrian government, including Al Qaeda. If and when the Assad regime is toppled, either a coalition of these groups or the one wielding the most power will take over. Why our government is willing to support this is beyond me. For all we know, the rebels themselves are the ones who let loose with the chemical weapons. I'm looking at the messes in Egypt, Iraq and Libya and wondering just what it is that we're trying to accomplish. Is the US or the world better off with the muslim brotherhood and their ilk running these countries?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Quote:
Just asking because I don't know the answer. Exactly which group does our govt want in power in Syria? If Assad was removed is someone better going to be in power or another evil person or group?
sorry man but only the top dogs in the pentagon know that question.
i'm just a SSG. my job is to make sure my squad and myself execute orders. rather thats run convoy security, gate guard, line haul or patrols.
but from the brief information they give us, which is unclassified of course, this is probably just a show of strength, as the US does not tolerate the use of chemical weapons, especially on civilians. we aren't trying to oust him, especially since the intelligence isn't even clear on if Assad used them or the rebels did.
which is why personally, and i stress PERSONALLY, cause i don't represent the opinions of the US military, i think it's a waste of time to go there just to...well, flex our muscles. at the same time, because we are in a situation where we HAVE to show we are serious about non use of chemical weapons, our hands are pretty tied.
i'm black/rican/Turkish. i speak Turkce. my family over there, obviously, sees a different side of the news than we do here in the states. right now the opinion is that if we go to War with Syria, we are willingly engaging in the confrontation between Syria, Palestine, and Israel. basically, we just threw our hat into a good ole fashion holy war.
and those are problem i don't want to be a part of.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
A nation that was built through blood and fire, that enslaved a race of people while exterminating and stealing the land of others, was never a neutral nation.
I suggest you move to the country of your choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
A nation that was built through blood and fire, that enslaved a race of people while exterminating and stealing the land of others, was never a neutral nation.
I suggest you move to the country of your choice.
This is the country of my choice. You do not have to be ignorant to love, in fact it's usually the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
This is the country of my choice. You do not have to be ignorant to love, in fact it's usually the other way around.
So, in your own words, you support slavery, murder and the seizing the property of others?
Funny, I don't see it as supporting slavery. Many of the Founding Fathers inherited their slaves and freed them when the 'owner' died. A number of them were outright abolitionists. It is a primary reason why the northern states did not have slavery (even at the founding).
The 3/5th clause in the Constitution was a limiting tool. The slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 'whole persons' for census purposes so that they could continue the slave trade indefinitely. It became a key catalyst for the Civil War, which eventually freed the slaves.
As for the Indians that lived here, they weren't peaceful either. They took sides in wars with one another before Europeans ever showed up and then took sides with and against the various Europeans that came to the American continents. To suggest that they weren't blood-thirsty barbarians is laughable. They enforced slavery just as much as the warring African tribes. Read about the slave trade sometime. You'd find it isn't what you thought it was.
Go put it in your peace pipe and smoke it. It's better than what you're smoking right now. What you're smoking now seems to be killing your brain cells.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
This is the country of my choice. You do not have to be ignorant to love, in fact it's usually the other way around.
So, in your own words, you support slavery, murder and the seizing the property of others?
Funny, I don't see it as supporting slavery. Many of the Founding Fathers inherited their slaves and freed them when the 'owner' died. A number of them were outright abolitionists. It is a primary reason why the northern states did not have slavery (even at the founding).
The 3/5th clause in the Constitution was a limiting tool. The slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 'whole persons' for census purposes so that they could continue the slave trade indefinitely. It became a key catalyst for the Civil War, which eventually freed the slaves.
As for the Indians that lived here, they weren't peaceful either. They took sides in wars with one another before Europeans ever showed up and then took sides with and against the various Europeans that came to the American continents. To suggest that they weren't blood-thirsty barbarians is laughable. They enforced slavery just as much as the warring African tribes. Read about the slave trade sometime. You'd find it isn't what you thought it was.
Go put it in your peace pipe and smoke it. It's better than what you're smoking right now. What you're smoking now seems to be killing your brain cells.
No, I support the recent idea of equality in America. You may support slavery, murder and seizing of property but please don't project that on me.
Many founding fathers also supported the slave trade, and didn't free their slaves. Some were used to help their economy, and other slaves were used for sex by their masters. Some of the founding fathers thought it was cool that they could fight for their freedom, but the slaves couldn't fight for theirs. And few thought that slaves should be emancipated and educated starting tomorrow.
You do realize that there's nothing different between European countries of the time and Indians.of the time? Natives got involved with European politics just as Europeans got involved in Native politics.Both Europeans and Natives had slaves, just as Africans did. That's the way of the world. If you get caught in a war, you were to become a slave. That's how the world worked then. So please don't pretend that European civilizations were not more or less blood thirsty than any others. Also please read about the slave trade, when the Europeans lied to the African tribes that their slaves were to be returned. Or read about how the Spaniards enslaved the indigenous population.
Also none of this changes the fact that very few founding fathers felt that women had the same rights as men. But that's for another day, just as this should be. However, I'm responding to this to help cut down on some of the ignorance we have towards the history of the United States founding. At this point in time, we can look back and realize how ignorant and oppressive the founding fathers were and that their words have became archaic and we should no longer look at them as always right. We shouldn't have Presidents who base their feelings on theirs, Presidents who still call Natives savages, like we've had in the past 30 years.
We should really get back to Syria and less on the atrocities the U.S. has committed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
I suppose my only comment is that if you war on someone.. it's not unreasonable to expect them to war on you.
If we enter the Syrian conflict.. there will be consequences and repercussions. Now the question we face is.. are the consequences worth it?
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,171 |
Quote:
I suppose my only comment is that if you war on someone.. it's not unreasonable to expect them to war on you.
If we enter the Syrian conflict.. there will be consequences and repercussions. Now the question we face is.. are the consequences worth it?
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,240
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,240 |
Well, it sure sounds as if we have no proof that Assad and the Syrian government is responsible for the chemical weapons attacks. Every congressman I've heard today had the same talking point.....that there's "indisputable proof that chemical weapons were used". Not one of the 4 I listened to would identify who actually used the weapons. If there were proof that Assad was responsible, wouldn't they be all over it?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Syria
|
|
